Phychedelics and Metaphysics

[SpaceCowboy]

Hi people,

I want to start this thread to discuss and hear your guys opinion on what psychedelics really are and their link with metaphysics?!

Let me elaborate a little: Science regards psychedelics as chemical molecules belonging to the group of neurotransmitters, because they transmit information through their molecular structure and in collaboration with neuroreceptors. The molecular structure of 5-Meo-DMT looks like this for expample:

When this molecule docks into a suitable receptor, information in the form of electrical signals are forwarded to the respective areas of the brain, where altered neural activity influences our cognition and the content/state of our consciousness. 5-Meo-DMT is said to be a doorway into the absolute because of its potency and energy. But what is it that makes this neurotransmitter so powerful? Wouldn't it be too reductionistic and materialistic to say it just alters a little bit of our brainfunction so that we can then perceive the absolute? Leo said that he experienced a spontaneous Kundalini awakening during one of his trips (not sure if it was 5-Meo-DMT though). This could imply that the use of psychedelics changes the interaction with primordial energies (Kundalini, Shakti, whatever) in some way. What do psychedelics tell us about the nature of reality? Why do they work the way they do? What makes them different than powder sugar for example? Is it just a change in neural activity? Is spirituality just a change in neural/energetic activity?

I know that we are reaching the limits of logic and language at this point, but perhaps some of you are just as curious as I am regarding this issue. Would like to hear your opinion on the matter :).

 

[Leo Gura]

You will run into a strange loop if you ask that question.

Neurotransmitters don't really exist. That is an abstract concept created within consciousness.

The strange loop is infinite! Every object has an infinite chain of causes. So you will never get to bottom of this inquiry because you are confusing symbols for BEING.

Being cannot be symbolized.

[Neo]

Unfortunately though, these ways of looking at things don't provide any practical answers to anything.

If you believe the universe is all a construct, you can still ask how that construct adjuncts or interfaces with being? which is after-all what Leo, you think that 5Meo does, right?

[Joseph Maynor]

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You will run into a strange loop if you ask that question.

Neurotransmitters don't really exist. That is an abstract concept created within consciousness.

The strange loop is infinite! Every object has an infinite chain of causes. So you will never get to bottom of this inquiry because you are confusing symbols for BEING.

Being cannot be symbolized.

Everybody is dismissive of all Metaphysics except their own.  That’s one of the funny things about Metaphysics.  

Edited March 10, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Neo]

One answer would be that the brain has evolved to aid survival and procreation and natural selection would avoid "visions" and "enlightenment", anything that distracts us from the fight / flight / hunting for food.

If you're asking "but why drugs", the whole brain is a drug factory, it's all run on neuro transmitters and electrochemical impulses. It's a bit like asking why I can bypass something in a computer with a paper clip, and then asking why this paper clip is so amazing.

 

 

[SpaceCowboy]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You will run into a strange loop if you ask that question.

Neurotransmitters don't really exist. That is an abstract concept created within consciousness.

The strange loop is infinite! Every object has an infinite chain of causes. So you will never get to bottom of this inquiry because you are confusing symbols for BEING.

Being cannot be symbolized.

I understand what you are trying to say.

Yet there seems to be some kind of causality that every time you use this substance, you experience absolute infinity or nothingness. The better we understand these processes, the more target-oriented is our use of psychedelics and our spiritual practice in general.

[Nahm]

The psychedelics show you they don’t exist. 

[Leo Gura]

12 hours ago, Neo said:

you can still ask how that construct adjuncts or interfaces with being?

No, you cannot ask that. The construct doesn't interface with being, it IS being!

This cannot be understood at your present level of consciousness.

You must transcend it. The rational mind cannot go there. You need to access non-symbolic, infinite mind.

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Nahm said:

The psychedelics show you they don’t exist. 

Beautiful!

[Leo Gura]

12 hours ago, Neo said:

Unfortunately though, these ways of looking at things don't provide any practical answers to anything.

True.

Except it provides the ULTIMATE answer to EVERYTHING.

You must choose between TOTAL understanding and partial understanding.

[Haumea]

Quote

If you believe the universe is all a construct, you can still ask how that construct adjuncts or interfaces with being? 

The Universe is Shiva-Shakti, Being-Manifesting.

Manifesting is patterned, so of course you can get practical answers by examining the patterns.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Haumea

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Haumea said:

Manifesting is patterned, so of course you can get practical answers by examining the patterns.

That is of course also true. That is the domain of traditional science.

We definitely want more scientific research of 5-MeO.

The point is, you will never resolve the strange loop, you will just find more surface area to it.

For example, if a scientist tells you that 5-MeO deactivates the default mode network in the cingulate gyrus -- will that satisfy your metaphysical thirst?

[Haumea]

Quote

That is of course also true. That is the domain of traditional science.

There's also this in-between area (in-between physics and metaphysics) which I call "area science is damn uncomfortable with, and tends to reject."

Things like:

- Personality typology (They're OK with Big Five, not ok with Enneagram.)

- Astrology (which is too holistic to study properly, but is basically a special case of...)

-...Fractal Cosmology (which some physicists support and some/many? reject.)

Scientists like things in easily digestible bites, they are really uncomfortable with holism.

 

[Haumea]

Let me just add that, of course BEING is a hell of a lot more important than KNOWING (especially for many/most people who live in their heads) so I think Leo is absolutely right to stress BEING in this context.

Ultimately, if you got BEING handled, the KNOWING takes care of itself.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Haumea said:

There's also this in-between area (in-between physics and metaphysics) which I call "area science is damn uncomfortable with, and tends to reject."

Things like:

- Personality typology (They're OK with Big Five, not ok with Enneagram.)

- Astrology (which is too holistic to study properly, but is basically a special case of...)

-...Fractal Cosmology (which some physicists support and some/many? reject.)

Scientists like things in easily digestible bites, they are really uncomfortable with holism.

Yes, because traditional science is subscribed to mathematical analysis. So if a thing cannot be quantized, it may as well not exist for the scientist.

Which makes you wonder, how do scientists even get horny? Quite the throne in the side of the rationalist worldview.