Pav

Ah psychedelics... There's a lot I could say about them, but I'll try to keep this brief. Personally my motivation for consuming hallucinogens has been largely out of pure interest. I'm very fascinated by the brain, conciousness and psychology. I find that psychedelics can really mess with many of your brains processing, which can really provide a lot of insight into how it all works. I particularly enjoy trying link back what I've experienced with my knowledge of neuroscience. One example would be the sheer amount of processing which goes into your visual perception of faces. There is a region of the brain in the visual cortex which is responsible for processing peoples faces. I have noticed while on a psychedelic that peoples faces can become greatly distorted, to the point where they no longer look human. I interpreted this as the drug stopping or altering the processing of faces, leaving more raw sensory input, the data is no longer being as processed to make them look more 'human'. They look much more ape-like. My own hands have looked more like monkey's paws than human hands. One thing that psychedelics can do is induce a peak experience (including the mystical experience). Often when I come down from mushrooms, everything about the world will feel perfect just the way it is. I'll feel an intense love for everything and everyone. I'll look at a rock on the ground and feel that that rock is perfect as it is. Nothing could possibly harm me when in such a state, no neurosis at all, things which I was previously trouble with will now seem like complete non-issues. I will feel like I could have died right then and it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest. I haven't done a psychedelic for a while now, but I feel that I'm getting closer to having that state while sober (although not nearly as intensely). @Henri Your initial comments to DreamSpirit was a little judgemental. I'm detecting a bit of ego coming through your comments. A subtle type of 'my spirituality is superior to yours'. Maybe there's something here which you ought to examine. If you've never done a psychedelic you cannot possibly know what the experience is like. Many of the same things reported in the enlightenment experience are also reported in the hallucinogenic experience; feelings of oneness, egolessness, unconditional love, ect. Personally, I believe it to be preferable to accept that you do not know rather than labelling other peoples experiences as not 'spiritual'. Another thing to be mindful of is that you, along with everybody else, will have a bias when determining which teachers are genuine or what beliefs to subscribe to. Often you will only see what you want to see and disregard the rest. Your brain is very good at shaping your own reality. One of the good things about psychedelics is that by providing an experience of such an altered perception of reality they can make a person much more open to new ideas and experiences, and much more critical of their existing views. As David1 said, stay away from anyone who claims to know absolute truth.

From my interpretation, I don't think Maslow necessarily said that they didn't desire, but rather that they are motivated differently. A deficiency-motivated person will see some 'lack' they have and will be motivated to fulfil their lack, the process or journey is not important to them it is just seen more as a tool/method or an annoyance in the way getting what they desire. On the other hand a Being-motivated person simply does things because they love to be doing it, for the mere joy of it; they value the activity for its own sake. The reward is not important to them, it's the process that they love. The 'desire' for them is largely internal, rather than external. It's a bit like the difference between studying hard at school in order to win you parents respect/love/admiration/approval, or studying because you find the world interesting and wish to learn more about it. Another example would be the difference between starting person development for the external benefits like gaining more money and getting better with the opposite sex, or developing yourself because, as Maslow puts it; "growth is, in itself, a rewarding and exciting process, eg., the fulfilling yearnings and ambitions, like that of being a good doctor; the acquisition of admired skills, like playing the violin or being a good carpenter; the steady increase of understanding about people or about the universe, or about oneself; the development of creativeness in whatever field, or, most important, simply the ambition to be good human being." As an example: Personally, I have found that when you are just starting out in a new field, like learning about a new topic or getting started in a new art, you initially know so little about it that you cannot possible appreciate the full beauty of it. It is only once you are years into it that you can begin to realise just how vast the field is and get a slight idea of just how much you still don't know about it. When you're deep into mastery you will find that you are intrinsically driven to keep doing it. This drive can never be satisfied, but rather only grows greater the further you go. You find that you just can't get enough of it. It is a very pleasurably sort of desire.

Honestly, not really. I see no reason to value the way a person looks. I see nothing special about it, some people were born with right genetics others were not. Really, I see nothing intrinsically valuable in that. There are many other traits which I value highly in people, mainly concerned with their inner beauty. Also, a persons attractiveness is completely subjective and will change depending on how you perceive their inner beauty (personality, behaviour, values, ect.) I think you ought to examine why it is you are attracted to looks and feel the need to sleep with women you are emotionally and intellectually detached from. Are these really your values, or have you just adopted the values of you culture without stopping to examine them?

@Neuroticon The majority of people are insecure and neurotic regardless of their gender or attractiveness. There is just that <1% of the population who have largely sorted out their psychology and are onto self-actualisation. Haven't you ever observed the behaviour of males in that age range, they are just as neurotic and insecure, perhaps just expressed a little differently. Self-actualisation is more likely with age though, Maslow was only able to find a few (or maybe it was none?) college students who fit the description. This doesn't mean that older people are self-actualising, sadly very few people will ever reach this state (still only that <1%). I think you ought to examine why this has been your experience of women. Like attracts like, after all why would a self respecting person spend their time around neurotic individuals?

@Will Motivation and Personality.pdf chapter 12 - Love in Self-actualising People will give you a better understanding then I can. You make a very good point. We should definitely remain humble, no one can ever be superior or inferior to anyone else. I think Maslow uses 'healthy' to refer to people who have fulfilled their base need (physiological, safety, belongingness, love, and esteem) and are pursuing self-actualisation and self-transcendence needs. I guess I am just inspired by Maslow's model/description and have personally chosen it as my own path of development. But you are absolutely right! I should recognise that everyone's paths are all equally as valid and not evaluate people according to my own. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

@Will Perhaps this model could help someone at a very low stage of development, but I don't think it would be much use after that. From my own personal observations I don't this model to be particularly accurate at all, at least not among healthier people. I believe this model is rather hindering for the higher levels of development is this area, and I have only found a few people on this forum who seem to have transcended these concepts. It seems many people here are taking this model quite literally. I'm not quite sure how this was out of context. I interpreted it as them being so secure in themselves and their sexuality that they were comfortable in taking on roles which their culture has deemed to be for the opposite sex, both inside and out of the bedroom. They are comfortable in being either active or passive in love-making and they find pleasure in both, preferring not to limit themselves to only one. They have resolved the dichotomy and are nurturing both "masculine" and "feminine" traits. I think Maslow was specifically trying to say that the polarity had been transcended. In chapter 11 under the subtitle "Resolution of Dichotomies" (I'll only quote part of the text since I don't have the time right not to type it out, I highly recommend reading it for yourself): What I quoted in my first post was from chapter 12 under "Sexuality". I strongly recommend reading all of chapters 11 and 12, it is were Maslow describes the characteristics of self-actualising people, it's so inspiring.

I find it absurd that so many people think it's necessary to generalise other people over such trivial and meaningless qualities, in this case their genitalia. I see this a lot, even among these forums I've seen many people spreading stereotypes such as 'men are more logical and women are more emotional' or like the poster above 'guys are stimulated by our vision, women are very mental'. The truth is all the traits people define as either "masculine" or "feminine" can all be built up or repressed in anybody (the brain is highly plastic). I believe a much more accurate way to view other people, and indeed the world, is to simply see each individual as they are, without imposing any of your own beliefs and concepts of how they should be. So 'what do girls really like in bed?' You might as well be asking 'what do people really like in bed?' Everyone has their own unique set of preferences which is always changing. I have also noticed Leo preaching the feminine-masculine dichotomy in some of his videos. I've forgetting which video this was in, he made the generalisation that men are active, wanting to impose themselves on the world, while women are passive, just wanting to be led, he claims that this dynamic is particularly noticeable in the bedroom. I believe you would find this dynamic mainly amongst people who are less secure in themselves and their sexuality, who are too easily influenced by the beliefs and values of their culture. Maslow found that this dynamic was not present in healthy (self-actualising) people when he studied their sexuality: (Motivation and Personality.pdf) To be honest I think Leo has a lot of great content, but he seems to be quiet underdeveloped when it comes to love, interpersonal relationships, and sex.

Tried one out for the first time a few days ago. It was nice. I didn't really hallucinate that much though, no outer body experiences like Feynman had. For the majority of the session thoughts kept appearing, at first the content of these thoughts were of the same nature as before entering the tank (ie thoughts about what I was planning on doing in the near future; thoughts of the people that I love; thoughts about the sensory deprivation experience; and thoughts noting and conceptualising any interesting occurrences in the tank), minutes in the thoughts got a little stranger, I began thinking of Feynman as an old friend, and I can remember thinking that the tank was too small and that they should fill the room with water instead, which I quickly realised was impractical. These thoughts were occurring at quite a slow rate, since my mind was already calm prior to entering the tank, but at some point my brain seemed to have given up thinking all together, leaving to perceptions and no thoughts either, just blackness (for a period of time which is impossible to say, since your brain has no references with which to use to keep track of time, it may have to 10 minutes or it may have been 10 seconds). I experienced no visual hallucinations, but I can remember having a slight auditory hallucination three times throughout the session lasting only a few moments, I would hear a rumbling noise, the type you heard from a star destroyer's engines in the old Star Wars movies. I also had the sensation that I was flowing down a stream of water, and even though I knew I was lying horizontally my proprioception began playing up, a few times I felt as if I was vertically upright. Once I got out I felt different for about an hour afterwards. This feeling is difficult to describe. All the new sensory input was a little overwhelming, as if my brain was not used to keeping up with so much information. My mind felt clearer, although I believe this feeling was merely an illusion since I did not notice anything which wasn't normally their. All my muscles felt very relax and my skin felt smooth. I highly recommend this for meditation purposes. It would be especially useful for those who find themselves easily distracted by external stimuli.

@FindingPeace

Just sharing some interesting content I've found, enjoy. Aldous Huxley in The Door of Perception: (https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/writings/huxley_doors.shtml)

Richard Feynman on sensory deprivation tanks: https://www.dmt-nexus.me/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=51786 It sounds interesting, I'm keen to try it.

Because Learning itself is fulfilling. Leaning is to be valued for its own sake. It is a virtue, like creativity, beauty, compassion, love, passion, justice, curiosity, openness, playfulness, and many others. These are top values, there is no higher reason for pursuing them, they are valued because they are inherently valuable.

You accept that the world is as it is. When your landlord takes your money, you accept that this is the situation. There is no point getting angry or neurotic over it, or obsessing over how things should be different. You accept that this is the situation without passing any judgements on reality or your landlord as a person. While accepting the situation you may also be taking steps to fix or improve the situation if that's what you would like to do. You can be accepting of the world while also having an influence on it. There is no dichotomy here. Maslow on acceptance in self-actualising people (from Motivation and Personality, chapter 11 http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Motivation_and_Personality-Maslow.pdf ):

There is a system of the brain responsible for keeping track of time. Hallucinogenic substances can mess with this time process to produce some interesting changes in your perception of time. Often when I've been on a psychedelic time will lose all meaning (it's impossible to describe this is like) and I will lose the ability to keep track of time, whether one minute or one hour has passed it becomes impossible to tell. An interesting experience I had on LSD was where time began to gradually slow down, it felt as if it was about to stop but then it became fast again. What is time in the external world? I have no idea, it's a real mystery. Something interesting that's been discovered by time, which you may have heard of, is that time is relative (special relativity). Time is slower from a frame of reference which is travelling at a higher speed than one at a lower speed (time is also slower when under stronger gravity). So if you're travelling at a very high velocity one year may have passed for you, but for someone who is stationary, decades may have passed. You've got to remember that what you are perceiving is not how the external world really is (assuming an external world exists). Matter and energy interact with your body in certain ways which cause signals to be sent to the brain (ie touching a surface may cause nerves to fire, sending an electrical signal to the brain), your brain will then process these signals to produce the sensations you are experiencing. All of your perceptions of the external world are just representations of the external world produced by the brain; colour, sound, coldness, ect do not exist in the external world.

Yes, absolutely. Why would they not? I think it's quiet immature/low conciousness to think that people with differing genitals are unable to form friendships. Also there's is nothing "just" about a true friendship. A true friendship (ie not the crappy surface level friendships most people have) are very deep and intimate.

One thing you should realise is that beauty is completely subjective. Surely you've noticed your taste in men/women has changed over time? Perhaps you've got an ex who you found deeply attractive at the time but no longer hold that attraction for? Or have you ever seen a persons attractiveness melt away before your eyes once they opened their mouth and revealed their personality? Something interesting that I've noticed on LSD is how profoundly it can alter your perceptions of faces, it can sometimes be a little disturbing. My own hand will start to resemble a monkey's paw. Everybody will look so ape-like. I think normally your brain is always processing the way you perceive human characteristics, particularly faces, to make them seem more human. I believe a substance like LSD can alter this processing, or maybe even cease it altogether to reveal their unaltered appearance. Nobody looks beautiful when you're in such a state, they all just look weird. I guess my point is to be more concerned with inner beauty, with inner beauty outer beauty will likely follow. Of cause sexual attraction is important in sexual relationships, I believe the attraction will be far greater and far more satisfying when coming from a genuine emotional connection with your partner.

I think only truth she knows here is that a memory of me providing food at the bowl exists. That I will provide food again or that me and the food exist are all beliefs. I see no reason why experimentally learned beliefs and those learned from others have any fundamental difference, neither of them you can know.

@FindingPeace There certainly are many beliefs people hold which cause suffering and these should be removed or altered. At a first glance (I will have to investigate this further) it seems that most of these are distorted beliefs with no basis in reality or are subjective value judgements. It would be hard (perhaps impossible?) to suffer when your knowledge conflicts with others or reality if you recognise that beliefs are just models and are not truth. Something interesting which I've observed about beliefs is that the thoughts themselves are not the belief, rather there is an associated 'feeling' (or maybe another deeper unconscious processing) which underlies that thought. Have you ever cut off a thought mid sentence before it makes any sense, and yet still knew meaning behind it? Or had moments where you just 'know' something without having to verbalise it? Sometimes when I'm on mushrooms I will begin to strongly feel beliefs which I had previously known verbally. Maybe our pets are just thinking in emotions? When some spiritual teachers speak of eliminating beliefs or eliminating your thoughts could they mean to use these feelings instead? I think this could be dangerous since these feelings are not truth either but can be incredibly convincing. In one of his lectures, Terrence Mckenna talks about a psychologist experimenting with nitrous oxide who suddenly realised the meaning of existence and quickly wrote it down. When he reviewed what he wrote afterwards, the note said 'everything smells like burnt walnuts.' Very often when on psychedelics you will have a profound realisation of some ultimate truth about the universe, but when you go to examine this truth you realise it was all nonsense. To be honest, when some spiritual teachers describe their profound realisations, their descriptions sound strikingly similar to the pseudo-realisations I've experienced on drugs. But maybe our pets don't think at all and are just acting on instinct and psychological conditioning? I don't see the value in living in such a way though. I think it is better to place your awareness on what's going on in your life, examine things logically with the help of models and beliefs.

@FindingPeace From what I can tell the only truth you can know is that your perceptions exist in what ever form they came in and that there is awareness. You do not know if your perceptions are an accurate representation of an external world, or if an external world exists since these are beliefs. If you accept what modern science tell us, then you can see that your perceptions of the world are inherently wrong, since colour, smell, feeling, sound, ect do not exist in the external world, they are merely representations of matter and energy produced by the brain. It's rather apparent to me that some beliefs are more useful than others for real world applications (eg the concepts of modern medicine for curing and preventing diseases or the concepts of physics and engineer for constructing things). I believe everybody ought to recognise their beliefs as beliefs and realise their inherent inaccuracy, but I'm struggling to see how it is in anyway desirable to do away with all you beliefs and models of the external world entirely. Could you please explain it to me? My cat will often sit next to her bowl when she's hungry, it seems like she believes I will bring her food if she does that. She may not hold the beliefs in words like most humans do, but rather experience her beliefs in the raw "feeling" which underlies thoughts in humans.

Maslow makes the distinction between two different types of love; deficiency-love and being-love. D-love is needy, possessive, and neurotic. Infatuation (the "in love" experience) is a form of D-love. B-love is completely non-needy and non-possessive, it is admiring rather than needing. You love the person for as they are without needing anything in return (or needing love in return). B-lovers are independent of one another and do not get easily jealous or threatened. It is the love between a healthy mother and her baby. Perhaps you love some close friends and family in such a way? As for your original question; it is good that you are not needy or looking to possess someone and I would try to avoid the "in love" experience if possible. Personally I think simply seeking to fulfil your deficiency need for sex will be quiet unsatisfying in the long run. I think you could have much more satisfying sex with someone you have a genuine emotional connection with.

1. Why can't you be present with an ego? It seems to me that being more present is something you can develop separately through mental work. Also, it's possible to look at the future in excitement, and the past with gratefulness. (I haven't gone through those videos yet we may still be talking about different things) 2. Instead of doing things to chase some future goal, acquire some possession, or validated your self image, you can do things simply because you love to do them and you value them for their own sake. It's a different way of thinking and a shift in your perception of the world. Happiness has little to do with external circumstances; it's to do with your psychology. No matter what your situation, you can become happy with the right work on your psychology. Ego isn't the only factor here. 3. Because you accept that fact. You don't see death as a bad thing. It makes no sense to worry about something you have no control over. You are going back to the state you were in before you were alive, so you haven't lost anything, you've only gained, you've had brief opportunity to experience life which is remarkable!

I agree there is no way for me to know currently know what it is like to be enlightened. My experimentations with hallucinogens have shown me just how unimaginably different altered states of conciousness can be. I'm not against enlightenment or anything, I am very fascinated by it. I just want to provoke more discussion on the topic to learn more about it, because Leo's posts seem very dogmatic about it.