.
Have you done acid?
.
Last edited by female; 07-09-2015 at 05:04 PM.
I'm not sure
No, but it's definitely something I'd want to try at least once before I die. From what I've heard from people, it can cause permanent changes in the mind that are both positive and negative. Apparently, it also increases your IQ by 10% after one use. I'm not sure if that's true, but I remember reading it somewhere. I'd try it one time just to gain that powerful insight into our existence that hopefully will leave a positive impression on me, but I doubt I'll try it again after that.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I haven't done it and I probably wouldn't try it. I'd be interested if the things Traveler said were definitely true...because they are very appealing to me...but I just don't think I could unless I was certain I'd be okay coming out the other end. Altered perception is not something I am comfortable with, having dealt with derealization for the past few years. I don't find it pleasurable to experience sensational things differently because of this. So....I dunno. I probably would not unless I knew I'd be okay. Also, I don't really know that much about what it does. :/ But I try to avoid drugs in general.
And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
Me too...No But it is one of my new year's resolutions.
Actually psychedelics in general were my resolution, although I'm wary of my own mind/emotional baggage.
Last edited by lemontrees; 01-25-2012 at 06:05 AM. Reason: caveat
I haven't.
I have seen a new documentary on LSD last November, titled "The Substance - Albert Hofmann’s LSD". Very interesting and highly recommend. The latest development in LSD: treatment of terminally ill people. After they had one or two mild LSD doses during special sessions, these people are no longer afraid to die and come to terms with it. It was very moving. Now I would like to try it myself.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I would definitely say you are a good candidate to try acid. You would probably really enjoy itOriginally Posted by Traveler
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
...
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
hence being the same moment.
the past is what circumscribes the future, which is given infinite potential by the present.The past must add to the future, not define it. Otherwise you have endless repetition without change, and the energy dissipates - the life process dies. All of this "living it up" is just a way of recreating the past, and clinging to it.
endless repetition can condense just as much as dissipate energy; what you're referring to is how undiluted the organic life process is; beginning and end are irrelevant.
yes, except that this has been going on for much longer than whatever age you think is mapped out in the bible. self-consciousness implies an antagonism between organic emergence and deliberate replication; maintaining this balance is the the transcendence of the process itself, not simply 'life.'Organic life is an transcendental process which can't be artificially replicated in full. You are organically unique. Still, people try to replicate life. But the emulation never lives up to the original. That is the sinking feeling which we [me and everyone i know] have. We are constantly trying to recreate originality in our society. That's the definition of being hooked onto something. Right now pretty much the whole society is enslaved to the internet, staring through a screen zombified at a moving picture. When you see kids as zombified as myself, you know we are in serious trouble.
the bolded is where I see the main fault. the difference between a machine and an organism is one of form, not basic function; and the conflict you have been harping on is merely the current embodiment of consciousness seeking a reflection through binary means.It is the difference between machines & organisms.Now life is transcendental, death is the closure of that transcendental process. The span of your life, and all the effects you had on others, are finalized. At this time your values become absolute. They are applied across an endless span of time. When values are applied across time the process leads to either self extinguishment or neverending life.
death is a closure in one sense, but a mediation in another; one's values are made absolute, but not in the test of judgment sense you seem to be implying -- this is because never-ending life is the implicit premise of the process, whose 'attainment' doesn't necessarily occur upon the moment of physical death, but can be activated at any moment, depending on the way one's conscious energy is reflected across the spectrum (you can see an example of this in the 'rebirth' that is described in initiation ceremonies)
no, life and death are not conditioned by physical existence; hence the transcendence not being so, either. for example, if one were truly being-towards-death, to use heideggarian terms, they would effectively already be dead, transcendent, with their energy only echoing the vector they had aligned on a universal level.It's because of this absolution you either inherit eternal life or your energy dissipates. Life and death: don't consider it the life or death of the physical body, but consider it the difference between energy that dissipates and falls back down to a less organized state, compared with energy that elevates to a more organized state.
In this way eternal life is not something we inherently possess. A self extinguishing process cannot have endless life. The problem is how you are thinking about life. Life is organized. Life is the increase. Energy dissipated into a less organized state is not life, it is death. The physical death of the body is a turning point and potentially an elevation of the organization life, but not inherently.
agreed. but I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in an explanation of what 'you really are,' on this very basis? I say that because you seem to believe one is defined by a consciousness.Nothing is created or destroyed, but no one will contend that your body fueling a worm whose children are dead in 60 or some odd years along with all the other life on earth is you being reincarnated. But it does represent the continuation of your spirit, along with all the other effects you've had throughout your life, which is why your effects on other human beings is so critical. In the same way, your soul being burnt up and reforming into another isn't you having eternal life. You can exist eternally upon death, with the same consciousness which defines you.
I'm not much interested in biblical parallels, as the coding remains the same regardless of the medium, and I've already studied the works which paved the way for your prophetic canon.Your spirit is held together by others. Everything we do here on earth has massive effects upon the world of spirits. Right now our spirits are being forged. When the internet crashes and burns, everyone who put themselves into the internet will have some level of spirit death. The internet is actually referred to in revelations. That's a whole nother issue if you want to get into that.
4w3-5w6-8w7
You need to learn to communicate clearly, not to the voices in your head but to the people on this side of reality. This is a massive knot which I'm only going to take the time to untie once.
Last edited by rat1; 02-01-2012 at 06:26 AM.
How on earth could endless repetition condense, aka GROW energy? Growth is a change. After that growth, the thing is changed.
because repetition is the undertone of change. when I say that repetition can condense just as well as dissipate, I'm referring to the way in which something repeats itself. you're taking repetition literally, and thus missing the entire point.
Things stay the same to a degree, and they change to a degree. This happens simultaneously, in harmony, as I described in the first part of the main post. For a simple example of the process I am talking about read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
With Pi, one number after another IS calculated in the same way, and it DOES grow out of the moment previous; yet the number never repeats itself, and it never ends. This is how life works.
What you describe is analogous to tugging on a flower and expecting it to grow faster, or depriving a flower of water and wondering why it died.
funny, given that I already said it was a harmonious antagonism. quit being an idiot and realize that CHANGE IS SELF-SAME. then consider the substance of the soothsaying bullshit you've been spouting off for the past two pages.
If you can't understand how life works on a fundamental level you aren't going to understand the significance of our society being absorbed into machines on a mass scale. So this debate is fruitless until you get the first part of this discussion correct. But I will say that if you don't see the qualitative difference between the last 60 years, the last 200 years, and the last 2000 years, then you are blind.
the 'qualitative differences' between this or that era's evolution only confirm the same fundamental pattern.
organic harmony is a better phrase. And yes, replication works in tandem with the concrete moment as an adaptation, i.e. the past adds to the future. This is different than the endless repetition which leads to dissipation - what defines that is disconnection from the concrete moment (something which alot of people on here are plagued by - i wonder why).
repeat after me: the process' repetition is itself endless. this is why it is about the vector of each individual within the collective space. you've just confirmed what I said above after overlooking it in lieu of a semantic change, now you want to talk about being disconnected from a concrete moment. right. the person who goes from sucking off jesus to flattering himself as a shameful satanic to an internet forum knows so much about that.
That's what death is, rejection of the implicit premise, aka God.
death is rejecting God? no, it's the universal force at work
The person must be 'reborn' before death, but yes.. You are mostly correct, we may reconcile at any given time within our lives. There is an exception but it's not that relevant to this discussion. Though keep in mind that the longer a person goes without reconciling themselves, the less likely it becomes they will do so before they die. But I fail to see how this is significant in what we're discussing to begin wit). If you are trying to say something more than this I'm not seeing it.
what I'm saying is that the reconciliation is already there, to be realized whenever, not some lofty bedchamber awaiting those noble souls who have 'inherited eternal life' through their death. being reborn amounts to opening one's eyes while asleep, and realizing that a waking dream is but a more honest form of a living slumber. what you're not seeing is due to mistaking ideological understanding with personal application.
The values are made absolute only at death.
only if the person couldn't realize them as such while still living.
Actions are an input for programming reality. So historical fact is important.
and did you consider how actions are programmed to begin with? oh right, it's all mapped out in the bible.
boo
4w3-5w6-8w7
My bad for getting pissed at you. This is not how I am supposed to behave, as you can see I struggle with following the law.
The first point I made to you distinguishes between repetition without change, and repetition with change. The repetition without change I described as just that: "endless repetition without change", which you then quoted as "endless repetition", removing the distinction. When you quote the phrase "endless repetition" I take this as a direct reply to the phrase I used, namely "repetition without change". Now you tell me you meant repetition WITH change. Very well then - if repetition with change is what you meant to describe, again I've already covered this in the bit about how "the past serves the future". That is in the first post as well. You actually do not have a point. You're not contradicting me, you're drawing erroneous conclusions off of misinterpretations.
You are not comprehending what you read. That is the problem. You read it, interpret it badly, quote that and negate the very thing you misinterpreted by repeating what I actually said, then you manage to rally that as justification to arrive at the opposite conclusion you should be arriving at. Looking through the rest of your post you've done this the whole way through.
This "harmonious antagonism" is what I originally described... Should I take this to mean you're agreeing with me again? What then is your point? You have no assumption to support one. Do you mind starting from scratch and making one on your own? Like I did for you, writing my own paragraph with the point clearly supported, where the paragraph may stand on its own, not twisted and full of misinterpretations the way you have it here. If you can write your own standalone paragraph, then I will respond to you.
Every pattern involves both change and sameness. What do you think this describes:
"With Pi, one number after another IS calculated in the same way, and it DOES grow out of the moment previous; yet the number never repeats itself, and it never ends. "
Simply observing there is change and sameness isn't a point. Every pattern has that quality. You must distinguish between patterns. Right now we are talking about 3 of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number - the past serves the future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal - endless repetition without change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number - life is transcendental (as is Pi)
The entire post I made is distinguishing between these patterns. All 3 of these patterns both change and stay the same.
Endless repetition without change - as far as .333 is the same as .3333333, there is no change. The number is diminishing itself. It does eventually extinguish completely; read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_series
In this way "endless repetition without change" is a nonsense phrase, as is "endless repetition"; it should be more like "eternal repetition" .. Or something. Because the number stretches out to the boundary of an eternity, but does not transcend that boundary, since it is not irrational.
In other words, each number in a repeating decimal is not reformulated by the number preceding it, so nothing is ever created by it. This type of fixation is described in the OP.
As we see here you're still 4 levels behind.
traces back to the indistinct assumption described above.
If you only realized what's coming to us all you'd be along side me. I am trying to communicate how this works to you, but you just don't get it. No one seems to actually get all of it. Maybe a simpler approach is all that works. Moralistic, but direct and to the point.
You are tending to misinterpret what I say and then bounce out of wack off of that. So I'll say it again: if you can write your own standalone paragraph, then I will respond to you.
Last edited by rat1; 02-01-2012 at 07:22 PM.
Posting Permissions
