Carl-Richard

[Citation needed]

Actually, it seems like wikipedia indeed uses a pharmacological definition of "psychedelic" ("5HT2A agonists"). My bad ?. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_drug So according to that definition, MDMA is considered a weak psychedelic (judging by the ratio of its main mechanism of action – 5HT release – to 5HT2A agonism)... but then this also means that 5-MeO-DMT is only a weak psychedelic, as its main mechanism of action is actually 5HT1A, not 2A (1 to 100 difference). Curiously though, the main metabolite of MDMA – MDA – has twice the amount of 5HT2A agonism of MDMA (and is more commonly referred to as a psychedelic), and because psilocybin is also classified as a psychedelic while only serving as the prodrug to its metabolite psilocin, then that would strengthen MDMA's position as a psychedelic as well. On the other hand, I think the word "entheogen" has more to do with the context the substance is used in rather than the qualitative effects of the substance itself. For example, "rapé" (shamanic snuff) is just tobacco. Likewise, cannabis is used as an entheogen in many cultures. It's more of a cultural thing than a pharmacological thing. However, the reason I called the word "psychedelic" a cultural artefact is because the word stems from the so-called "classical psychedelics" (LSD, mescaline, DMT, psilocybin) that became popular in the 60s. It just simply happens that all of those are mainly 5HT2A agonists, and therefore that word probably translated more easily into the pharmacological definition later on. MDMA on the other hand only became popular much later through 80s rave culture, which is probably why it didn't become as readily associated with the word "psychedelic". Another example of the culture/historicity issue is the term "hallucinogen", which was coined in the 50s to describe the newly discovered classical psychedelics. Today, it spans a much wider range of substances, which includes psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants.

"Psychedelic" is more a cultural artefact than an accurate pharmacological class.

I was ageeing with you. Not every response has to be taken as a counterclaim.

Many people misunderstand the role of effort in spiritual growth. There is nothing wrong with effort. Effort and effortlessness is a duality that needs to be transcended. People who are enlightened either did a lot of work in this lifetime or in past lives in order to get to where they're at today. Sure, the few milliseconds before enlightenment may be described as an effortless and authentic expression of "being-here-now", but if you look at the years of struggle leading up to that point, that description is far from the case.

You would have no problems with that word if you had the chops to become enlightened . All the spiritual teachers that I've heard talk about past lives said that they had been on the path for a looong time before awakening in this lifetime.

You need lifetimes of spiritual practice to become enlightened, probably around 100k hrs in total. That is why it might seem impossible in just one lifetime. It's never too late to start though

Suicide is not the answer, because that is yet another survival drive masking itself as an "ultimate solution for everything". A solution for what exactly?: Well, only the fullfillment of another survival need. You have to give up the thing that is driving you towards suicidal thoughts. Only the ego wants an ultimate solution. Enlightenment doesn't come as a result of turning away from life. It comes from gradually acing life and going beyond it. Look at Sadhguru's life before awakening at 25. He was running multiple successful businesses. Suicide was the last thing on his mind at that moment. His being was simply ready to evolve to the next level, and all of it was several lifetimes in the making.

Visionaries seem unrealistic to the common man, because they focus on what reality will come to be, rather than what reality is at the present. To be honest, what Daniel is doing isn't very dissimilar to what Leo is doing. It's just that he takes a much more collective/social lens while Leo tends to take a more self-development lens. Forward-thinking and optimism has sort of become an accepted part of self-development, meanwhile collective issues are much often seen in a pessimistic light, because of the complexity and slow-moving nature of social systems. Besides that, both are really talking about the same things.

Just meditate on compassion instead. You skip the comedown bit.

Because Truth goes against all of your survival instincts.

*dies of excitement*

Do something that requires you being surrounded by Yellow people. It'll basically only happen if you align your life purpose with Tier 2. https://www.santafe.edu/ https://consilienceproject.org/ https://neurohacker.com/ https://www.flowgenomeproject.com/

Survival is about identity. Whatever you identify as being, survival is about the perpetuation of that identity. For most people, that includes their individual physical body and their beliefs, actions, habits, general behavior patterns. For some, the circle of identity is more expansive and includes everything in the universe, and they might then place less overall emphasis on the physical body relative to most people.

Sheesh

Take the Mensa test.

Mhm. That is what a successful collective is at the most basic level: a collection of great individuals. They created everything you see around you that we're all enjoying the fruits of. What I'm essentially saying is that we should treat these things with tender care because it's the most precious things we have.

Taken from a conversation in the youtube comment section of this video (cmon, bear with me ): 5-MeO-DMT - The Magic Pill To Enlightenment & God He hasn't responded yet, but I will add his responses as they come if the conversation still stays interesting (I at least found his original response inspiring). Until then, forgive me for leaving you with the old spiel of taking a "meta-perspective" when it comes to psychedelics and the brain . You guys can also jump into the conversation if you want

All the greats stood on the shoulders giants and lived in societies that were built on thousands of years of collective coordination; politics, business, infrastructure, production and services, architecture, medicine, military etc. Without that, we would not have the intellectual traditions that discovered things like individual rights and democracy. We would have to spend most of our time gathering food. It's so deeply interwoven into our daily lives at this point that we've become blind to its absolute importance.

Care to elaborate on that? It's kinda the crux of the issue here: what role does the collective play in individual freedoms? My point is that these two "opposites" exist in a dialectical relationship. A functional set of individual freedoms arises in tandem with a functional collective. If you weaken one of them in sufficient amounts, both will suffer. It's therefore not simply an either/or question of choosing individual freedoms over collective stability and vice versa.

@impulse9 @Parththakkar12 Let's entertain the idea of not just "nature" but "human nature" for a while. Isn't it true that humans were obligate collectivists for most of evolutionary history? After all, what was the societal structure before the advent of agriculture? Pre- Dunbar number tribal bands. There was no such thing as "individual rights" back then. Survival of the individual was synonymous with the survival of the tribe. This actually never changed – it's still true today. It has just been forgotten because of the massive survival success of the collective, and now when the collective is threatened, people are confused when one considers implementing collective measures. So if humans are fundamentally collective creatures, why are you guys so against human nature?

Let's imagine what that process of questioning one's own beliefs looks like: You ask a question using the cognitive semantic structures granted to you by the social matrix, and you form a hypothesis. You learned that the hypothetico-deductive method is a virtuous truth-finding device from the social matrix. You then test that hypothesis by probing some more into your own socially conditioned semantic structures and conjure up an answer, and then a thought arises out from these structures that say "I just had an original thought!". That is the extent of self-deception that is going on here. The thing is that there never was even a modicum of originality in that process. It's simply the case that your mental patterns and motivational drives are helplessly a product of the social matrix.

Mind is cognitive stuff like thoughts, beliefs, ideologies etc. Consciousness can be its own thing, but it can also involve aspects of mind, heart and gut etc.