Mushrooms
-
Being legal to do in my vicinity.
, anybody else invested in this amateur sport?It's fun and teaches you sterility and neatness.. something I strive for in my studies and practices.
You can get spores for Cubensis, (the Celtic Magic Mushrom,) Lion's Mane, Shitaki, and a few others. Most are fairly easy to grow if you've got dicipline.
Plus you can eat them and gain experience points from the elves.
Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!! -
Brain dump on psychedelics (FWIW
).| wouldn't take anything you experience or think on psychedelics too seriously.
The world generally, and the brain in particular, works on the principle of "Generate-and-test" - i.e., when confronted with a thing, the mind throws out a bunch of possible things the thing could be, and momentarily sees-it-as those things (of course usually for common or typical experiences, the range is pretty narrow and most things are familiar).
Normally, the follow-up is to test those hypotheses, those seemings, to see if, upon further interaction, the thing behaves as a thing of that type characteristically behaves (to see if it actually is the way it seems).
It looks like what happens on psychedelics is that the "generate" part has a spree, and the "test" part goes on holiday.
So you get a flood of "possible-things-this-could-be" - i.e. a "trip". It's notable that while illusions can be had at any time and are constant throughout the experience (e.g. wibbly/wavy, things looking like other things, etc.), genuine hallucinations (e.g. serried ranks of Mickey Mouses dancing across the kitchen floor) are usually had in the context of physical stillness, and are dissolved or shattered by one's own testing movement.
All this kind of fits in with the problem scientists have had of understanding what psychedelics do chemically - it looks like, chemically, it's a simple threshold mechanism, and if I remember my psychedelics history correctly, it was always a bit of a puzzle how such a simple mechanism could result in such florid experiences. The above hypothesis is the probable answer: the "test" threshold is lowered, or the "generate" threshold is raised, or both, but both are processes the mind has of its own accord, it's not like psychedelics introduce some new magical capacity into the brain.
All that said, psychedelics can be tremendous fun if you don't take them too seriously (in celebratory contexts, an MDMA booster taken a half hour before the psychedelic can give a wonderfully ecstatic experience - note that this isn't for the beginner though, as MDMA has its own rare, but possible "bad trip" effects in the first few uses, and you wouldn't want someone to have that in the context of a psychedelic), and they can "loosen the girders of the soul to give her breathing", or, as it were "reboot" the mind now and then (but here you have to be a bit careful: reviewing the appalling, stinky mess of one's life can get depressing, so avoid downward spirals - to avoid these, remember it's just a drug and get into the next shiny thing that comes along). Also, the experience of letting the "generate" part run free without being constantly topped and tailed by the "test" part is good practice for thinking outside the box in more serious contexts.
Being able to generate possibilities is vitally important, because we have no fucking clue beforehand what the hell is going on in this world,and we have no hotline to omniscience. But the "test" part is also vitally important, the two must work together for a living thing to cognize the world around it, build a reasonably accurate model of the world, navigate its way through the world, and live in it.
This doesn't mean that the things experienced, or thoughts had on psychedelics are necessarily rubbish - they might be rubbish, or they might be inspired. But that can only really be found out subsequently. (Same principle as the Viking saying: make any important decision twice - once when drunk, and once when sober.)
Consensus reality is not to be sniffed at, and I've seen too many people go down the psychedelic rabbit hole in a rather sad way. Very few people have the basis of a fundamentally sceptical mind, like people such as Crowley or McKenna do, and are able to navigate the psychedelic wonderland without getting obsessed.
So yeah, enjoy them in a celebratory spirit, or use them seriously as an investigative tool, but for god's sake don't expect to get things to believe out of them. Remember, belief isn't terribly important, it's just a psychological phenomenon. What's important is things like: distinguishing like from unlike, reasoning, hypothesis testing, and then action based on best-tested hypotheses. Whether you believe x or not, is irrelevant, you act on "it's an x" if that hypothesis is the last man standing, after it's been subjected to whatever tests you can think of and you can't think of any more tests.
Also remember the Bayesian point: no hypothesis stands in isolation, it's always part of a bunch of hypotheses, with variable probability. It's just as important to think what the world would look like if your chosen hypothesis were wrong, and another right, as it is to think what the world would look like if your hypothesis were correct.
-
Where are you> Psilocybin ingestion is only legal in Brazil and in Holland (as truffles).
-
Well, FWIW,
It's more than just theory and speculation that when humans were first becoming humans, in the African grassland and jungles before it receded into desert, they ingest psychedelic mushrooms which gave them a leg-up in sexual procreation, enlarged their language centers in the brain, and gave them "edge detection" which dwarfed the edge detection of the other predatory animals they were living alongside.
This means that if it were not for psychedelic mushrooms, humanity would probably have been wiped out by much more aggressive predators.
It's been proven that after one has reached a certain level of psychedelic use, they no longer experience "hallucination", as does a child.
This is where one becomes aware of auras and the elctromagnetic forces of the universe which guide and propel everything.
Also, psychedelic mushrooms have been the major influence of every religion on the Earth.
So, whenever someone tries to misjudge psychedelic use, especially those who have not gone the extra mile and done a full psychedelic does of either psilocybin or lsd, I tend to ignore them as a less evolved creature, no offense, but of course still with the potential to make the proper decisions to reach this level of 'non-hallucination."
It's the point where one realizes everything one has been taught by their parents/teachers, etc, is basically wrong and selfish, and the mushroom guides the spirit down the path of non-resistance, and back up the tree.
Alesiter Crowley journeyed through all the Aethyrs except the first, on Mescaline. This liber, 418, is one of the most important in the Thelemic curriculum.
It's easy to say "oh, drugs are bad and you can't trust yourself when you are on them," which is the most damnable thing a human can say in this day in age, when in reference to natural psychedelics. It's easy because the fear of the unknown is most pronounced in something known to have a person experience the deepest and darkest of their dreams, first-hand, face-first.
But thanks for playing!
PS - Promoting the use of MDMA, a known amphetamine which mows down tendrils in the brain, all the while advising against trusting what the mother mushroom has to teach, is the most damnable thing I've read all week.
-
As far as I know McKenna's entire mushroom-philosophy hinges upon scant evidence. It's complete speculation that mushrooms were abundant in the "Isisian age" of 'shrooom-orgies under the New Moon where the nuclear family was not yet manifest on Earth: (Q. whose your daddy? A. Fuck knows, I belong to the tribe anyway and who cares.?) Is there any evidence or this just a fairy tale?
How do we know that mushrooms were the central aspect of any old society? We don't. The tenet is based upon the fact that the mushrooms are not so abundant now so therefore they must've been abundant then. McKenna was a brilliant mind, for sure but was he truly rigorous?
I like McKenna but was he just a pothead, 'shroom head, full of confirmation bias?
-
"i have ingested so much hallucinogenics that i'm hallucinating that i'm not hallucinating any more. yep. scientific fact."
-
@ThelemicMage said
"It's more than just theory and speculation that when humans were first becoming humans, in the African grassland and jungles before it receded into desert, they ingest psychedelic mushrooms which gave them a leg-up in sexual procreation, enlarged their language centers in the brain, and gave them "edge detection" which dwarfed the edge detection of the other predatory animals they were living alongside. "
Yeah, I remember that sounding quite impressive when I first read it in McKenna 23 years ago. Have you checked for primary sources?
" Also, psychedelic mushrooms have been the major influence of every religion on the Earth."
I'd rather trim that down a bit to "psychedelic mushrooms have been an influence on some religions on Earth"
" So, whenever someone tries to misjudge psychedelic use, especially those who have not gone the extra mile and done a full psychedelic does of either psilocybin or lsd, I tend to ignore them as a less evolved creature, no offense, but of course still with the potential to make the proper decisions to reach this level of 'non-hallucination.""
Dude, you're talking to someone who took 5 tabs of acid at Glastonbury once, and thought he'd teleported outside the fence at one point (I mean, I could see - or believed I could see - the festival from outside the fence) and was talking to an honest-to-goodness Wizard (pointy hat, staff and all) who said some wise shit. I've done the full course, trust me
" It's the point where one realizes everything one has been taught by their parents/teachers, etc, is basically wrong and selfish "
Everything? Literally everything?
There's nothing "wrong" with psychedelics, and they can certainly have some value; all I'm saying is that you're not obliged to believe every idea that pops into your head while you're on them
-
@ThelemicMage said
"
PS - Promoting the use of MDMA, a known amphetamine which mows down tendrils in the brain, all the while advising against trusting what the mother mushroom has to teach, is the most damnable thing I've read all week.
"Yes i agree...
Also mdma is probably the most unpredictable and dangerous substance for the heart. We dont even count how many people died from a single dose... and for what? The effect is not even that special. Just mix some clean amphetamines and lsd and you'll have a similar thing but much safer and predictable. Also it lasts longer so you can enjoy better. That "rush"thing of mdma reminds me of poppers. Dangerous poppers, that is. To me it is a very bad idea.
Anything else than cannabis, alcohol, mushrooms and (good) coca i wouldnt advise personaly. Another issue is it can be hard to tell what is really inside synthetic stuff. Even "lsd" now is often not actual lsd. Even herb is "sprayed" sometimes. Coca is a real issue if not good. Anything can be inside. Be careful on quality. Only best quality one should take and always with healthy and fit body. The shamans and hunters that use substances tend to be very fit. Like elite athletes in our society. This is good to know the body and also to bear "pressure".
To me substances should be a part of a balanced lifestyle, with regular sports, rest, and spiritual practice. I see substances on subtle level as elemental, sephirothic, or even IHVH emanations. They can really help, as long as they are balanced. But a goal also to remind is one should "invoke" their power so one need less and less. Now i just smoke a joint or have a beer from time to time and i find it satisfying. Though it wouldnt be the case if i had not taken enough stuff before that. I would be lacking something. Maybe in the future i will take more again. I dont know. Actually i hope so because it rocks.
I just listen to the voice... One should purify the prejudices so one can benefit of what is really needed without unbalance in a way or another.In everyday life i do only coffee and cigarettes now, and it is satisfying. Also a good test of control as they are actually very addictive, so if one can smoke reasonably cigarettes and enjoy them it is a good sign.
-
@Takamba said
""i have ingested so much hallucinogenics that i'm hallucinating that i'm not hallucinating any more. yep. scientific fact.""
"i have breathed so much from my penis that seeing through its eye seems like seeing through the third eye. Black tantra fact"
-
@gerry456 said
"As far as I know McKenna's entire mushroom-philosophy hinges upon scant evidence. It's complete speculation that mushrooms were abundant in the "Isisian age" of 'shrooom-orgies under the New Moon where the nuclear family was not yet manifest on Earth: (Q. whose your daddy? A. {****} knows, I belong to the tribe anyway and who cares.?) Is there any evidence or this just a fairy tale?
How do we know that mushrooms were the central aspect of any old society? We don't. The tenet is based upon the fact that the mushrooms are not so abundant now so therefore they must've been abundant then. McKenna was a brilliant mind, for sure but was he truly rigorous?
I like McKenna but was he just a pothead, 'shroom head, full of confirmation bias?"
If we accept that everything is true, it doesnt matter much. From some perspective it can only be true. Everything that exists interacts with every other thing. Doesnt even need to take mushrooms to be under their influence. One just has to attune to their vibration and i find this very probable it happened back then.
You'll see some profane people taking a strong dose of shrooms or lsd and feel nothing at all. Why? I let you guess...
Also back then, the earth had a way stronger electromagnetic field than now wich would facilitate hugely such attunement, and also discovery of qi gong etc. Even in Crowley's time, just a hundred years ago, earth emanations were probably 25% stronger than now. It is a big difference. Thats why also in old grimoires you see beginners have strong results with evocations, though now one must have better skill to get similar result.
-
-
And a nice dose of dmt isn't that bad from time to time either.
Oh, and I'll play:
"I have eaten so much paper that I am turning into one of the cards from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland."
Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!! -
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Hermes said
"Also mdma is probably the most unpredictable and dangerous substance for the heart. "@Hermes said
"In everyday life i do only coffee and cigarettes now"
Pot, meet kettle."
Gnosami, I assume you mean coffee and cigarettes are not enough to fulfill the cosmic responsibilities as universal "consumers." ie: if you don't buy the ticket and take the ride, you're just a burden on the rest of us..?
I suppose I look at a kettle more evolved than something like a pot.
Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!! -
Actually, I just meant that cigarettes are probably the most dangerous commonly consumed substance for the heart and that claiming them as a personal vice while extolling the over-hyped dangers of MDMA in the same post is... questionable at best.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Actually, I just meant that cigarettes are probably the most dangerous commonly consumed substance for the heart and that claiming them as a personal vice while extolling the over-hyped dangers of MDMA in the same post is... questionable at best."
Most people getting problems from cigs have many other factors going on, and they smoke a lot. Many old chinese qi gong masters do smoke a lot too and have no problems at all.
Mdma does seem to me a different story. Though everything can go fine too if most other factors are ok.
And we're on a magick and mysticism forum here, not the place for typical unbalanced man. Rather that for the balanced one who seeks further precision of it. If any possibly dangerous endeavour is to be taken from such a perspective it may go fine. At the end of the day it is a matter of balance of forces.
-
Agreed.
-
Agreed as well. And it's why I found your first assertion
@Hermes said
"
Also mdma is probably the most unpredictable and dangerous substance for the heart. We dont even count how many people died from a single dose... and for what? "to be so out of place. This is the place for balanced individuals exploring reality in all its possibilities. That sort of panic-mongering seemed, to me, to be quite at odds with one who subjects his lungs and heart to several hundred carcinogens on a regular basis without noting the inherent dangers.
In other words, the proverbial pot calling the proverbial kettle black.
Also, the answer to your rhetorical question: on a single dose, maybe one or two individuals in the past 30 or so years of recreational use have died. On an overdose, the number goes up slightly. At a toxic dose, the number approaches 100%.