For the record, none of it was sarcastic, and it was written with the perspective of the government in mind, since they are the ones who pass legislation. I agree that there are many doctors that hand out pills just so they can get paid more. I suffered through having a doctor like that. But, there are plenty that don't. And in any case, it's better for drugs to be in the hands of licensed professionals who spent many years studying medicine to be able to make the determination of whether or not someone should have something. I'd also say you're a lot less likely to get bad medications/experiences etc. from actual doctors rather than PAs and people who aren't MDs. That's just my experience though.
blindy107
Kava Lover
Well I agree from the gov standpoint those comments would make sense. Fact is the docs have been hooking people almost as long as dealers.
Also I think the Mj ban is a little more deceitful than that. All that stuff with Hearst and the DuPont company blanket banning Mj and hemp. nonsense I tell ya!
Also I think the Mj ban is a little more deceitful than that. All that stuff with Hearst and the DuPont company blanket banning Mj and hemp. nonsense I tell ya!
@JKE The greatest enemy to all of us is ideas. Including Science. Science is an institution of thought similar to religion. Both schools set out to make definitions on reality on experiences. Religion leans towards subjective with powerful examples such as Jesus, and Science likes to lean towards what is observed most commonly.
Both schools have come along way from their initial intentions and I won't get into that as if I got into everything I would spend days typing which is why I didn't respond to your earlier post.
I told you to choose what you want which is a highly abstract concept if you take the notion.
If I could transfer all my experiences to your mind telepathically I would because than change would be made.
Ultimately I saw this society as naive in my youth and doubted absolutely everything told to me. I set to understand until satisfied.
You see most cases of genius are not made with pre-set limitations on thought. Genius is when a new thought arises outside of the contemporary rational system in place. I am getting into high metaphysics of consciousness, but the years of thought have rewarded me.
Firstly it is completely immoral to place value on materialistic objects over people, unconditional love, and community. Utopia isn't born out of some sort of medicinal rapture where all don't enter the void of death until 100 years of age like commonly depicted in visions of science fiction. It isn't brought upon rules and regulations that hinder everybody to one way of thought to be easily manipulated. Utopia is when there are no limitations and we form community based on each others emotions, sexuality, imagination, and purely humanness. To much has been taken away. To much belief is forced. And people are starting to crack and breakdown. People are scared of the chaos I propose of a world under no restriction and no control yet our current and all historic institutions of control have and are leading us to the world being fried by global warming. We are going to kill the future of Earth. All your scientific advancements will be lost. The ideas of finding other planets, and starting civilization on Mars is insanity at it's finest. We have life here yet we consume the resources and destroy our atmosphere for malarky not required to sustain life or happiness.
You have supported everything I've been saying in the notions of your relating sentences yet you don't see how your rationalization of any sort of decency with this society is a result of your attachment to values that we're imposed to you by culture.
Culture is your operating system. Culture molds personalities of the ego. The Persona Theory of Carl Jung was a great influence on my grade 11 mind.
The only real way to think is to never place importance on your thoughts or ego. I used to get sad pushing my friends into such cognitive dissonance that I ruin there day with my old days of hour rants, and that is why I don't bother anymore. Once people realize they conduct their lives wrong in every way they begin to shake. Voice volume loses consistency, mental clarity is lost, and as the supporting structures of their mind crumble all that comes out is nonsense babbles moving into the direction of hysteria. The ego is feeble, and so is the mind. Imagination is based on rational thought of learnt ideas. Technically everything is made by imagination. When you analyze religion and non-religious acts of magic, and impossibility you have to ask is it impossible to reality or what I know to be reality?
I won't get into my personal encounters with magic as you can put the lens of science on to devalue my experiences in ways more unlikely than what I know to be true.
See every lens of reality teaches something. Science, religion, relativism, shamanism. Anyway to look at reality that has ever held sense to mankind has truth within it.
The real secret is to do what I do. Destroy your values completely with no regret. Analyze the world within new perspectives and beliefs. In my life I have been Christian, Atheist, and now I just say I'm human. I hold no value to limitation, and have succeeded immensely in my life thus far.
You can use labels such as oh yeah that hippy shit or spiritual lunacy, conspiracy theorist, this and that, but in that context those words are used defensively to withhold the ego from seeing the holes of it's perspective. You see it is the holes withing a lens of perspective that is weakness. Thus using your respected model of logic is it not agreeable that the model with the least holes is superior?
Science leaves a lot of holes and even with contributions done within scientific minds you filter specific conclusions out to hold your perspective as right and flawless. The most obvious example of this in your post was when @ThePiper claimed aspects of evidence and you said only studies and conclusions done by sources you deem credible should be considered. You see that idea is a limitation. You are not exploring your mind to find answers. Limitation by ideas is the only enemy to your consciousness, in which you have set for yourself. This is by looking through a lens and seeing the lens of perspective as right. Well can you tell me how Jesus turned water into wine?
The scientific skeptic would call it nothing but hoax and malarky. The poetic may call it metaphor. The Christians believe he was one with God. The valueless consider anything until it makes more sense than the previous models.
Even, in the event of, somebody posting a video of turning water into wine it would simply be deemed fraud and an in person example would be demanded. After an in person display it would be analyzed scientifically to find reason to fit the scientific model. Things such as "He used nanobots to discolor the wine and when he snapped his fingers the sound frequency was programmed to command the nanobots to restore to original consistency of the wine." Our world is dead of art, creativity, and magic because we've been programmed to belief systems. Rarely do people explore outside the comfort zone into uncertainty. Even in recent times there have been acts of miracle performed such as contemporary energy healing. See the mind has to see impossible to be able to imagine impossible.
In order for the mind to explore outside it self the biochemical integration of a plant must happen. You said you read creativity does not improve on drugs? It doesn't matter what you read. Those people simply didn't succeed. Set and setting are known to completely change experiences on many substances. See the reaction isn't of simple biochemistry it highly likely that it has essence. We can correlate the fact natural DMT is within all life plants, animal, and human alike, and the experiences of DMT reported on the internet and in Rick Strassman's study done down in New Mexico represent reality beyond this Earth when looked at in a fair non-conditioned perspective. Before contemporary capitalism and the fiending for value in gadget collection: drugs, magic, shamanism where all around the world and still remain in areas advancements haven't destroyed. People did drugs and had a high respect for drugs all around the world. In India the Rig Veda is chalk full of poetry:
"Heaven above does not equal one half of me.
Have I been drinking soma?
In my glory I have passed beyond earth and sky.
Have I been drinking soma?
I will pick up the earth and put it here or there.
Have I been drinking soma?"
X 119, 7-9
Rig Veda
It was reported that peasants would drink the piss of the rich to attain the effects of soma in the context of soma being the Fly Agaric. It is generally thought that Soma is not one substance but any drug.
Most people feel they have an opinion of reality when they study nothing. I feel I have educated myself fairly decently in many contexts, and hope my views can shed some light on the impacts of the mind done by culture I believe to be true. The fact I don't have credentials and haven't been rewarded a PHD by an institute respected on a large scale means nothing to the value of the idea presented. How can there be evidence to what I propose when It is ideas unheard of. You can take it for what it is worth or decide what it is worth, and either way I tried.
Forgive me for any spelling or grammatical error as this was typed as if talking.
Before drugs I was anxious, scared, and unknowing of what was real because surely this garbage can't be my life, and it isn't.
Both schools have come along way from their initial intentions and I won't get into that as if I got into everything I would spend days typing which is why I didn't respond to your earlier post.
I told you to choose what you want which is a highly abstract concept if you take the notion.
If I could transfer all my experiences to your mind telepathically I would because than change would be made.
Ultimately I saw this society as naive in my youth and doubted absolutely everything told to me. I set to understand until satisfied.
You see most cases of genius are not made with pre-set limitations on thought. Genius is when a new thought arises outside of the contemporary rational system in place. I am getting into high metaphysics of consciousness, but the years of thought have rewarded me.
Firstly it is completely immoral to place value on materialistic objects over people, unconditional love, and community. Utopia isn't born out of some sort of medicinal rapture where all don't enter the void of death until 100 years of age like commonly depicted in visions of science fiction. It isn't brought upon rules and regulations that hinder everybody to one way of thought to be easily manipulated. Utopia is when there are no limitations and we form community based on each others emotions, sexuality, imagination, and purely humanness. To much has been taken away. To much belief is forced. And people are starting to crack and breakdown. People are scared of the chaos I propose of a world under no restriction and no control yet our current and all historic institutions of control have and are leading us to the world being fried by global warming. We are going to kill the future of Earth. All your scientific advancements will be lost. The ideas of finding other planets, and starting civilization on Mars is insanity at it's finest. We have life here yet we consume the resources and destroy our atmosphere for malarky not required to sustain life or happiness.
You have supported everything I've been saying in the notions of your relating sentences yet you don't see how your rationalization of any sort of decency with this society is a result of your attachment to values that we're imposed to you by culture.
Culture is your operating system. Culture molds personalities of the ego. The Persona Theory of Carl Jung was a great influence on my grade 11 mind.
The only real way to think is to never place importance on your thoughts or ego. I used to get sad pushing my friends into such cognitive dissonance that I ruin there day with my old days of hour rants, and that is why I don't bother anymore. Once people realize they conduct their lives wrong in every way they begin to shake. Voice volume loses consistency, mental clarity is lost, and as the supporting structures of their mind crumble all that comes out is nonsense babbles moving into the direction of hysteria. The ego is feeble, and so is the mind. Imagination is based on rational thought of learnt ideas. Technically everything is made by imagination. When you analyze religion and non-religious acts of magic, and impossibility you have to ask is it impossible to reality or what I know to be reality?
I won't get into my personal encounters with magic as you can put the lens of science on to devalue my experiences in ways more unlikely than what I know to be true.
See every lens of reality teaches something. Science, religion, relativism, shamanism. Anyway to look at reality that has ever held sense to mankind has truth within it.
The real secret is to do what I do. Destroy your values completely with no regret. Analyze the world within new perspectives and beliefs. In my life I have been Christian, Atheist, and now I just say I'm human. I hold no value to limitation, and have succeeded immensely in my life thus far.
You can use labels such as oh yeah that hippy shit or spiritual lunacy, conspiracy theorist, this and that, but in that context those words are used defensively to withhold the ego from seeing the holes of it's perspective. You see it is the holes withing a lens of perspective that is weakness. Thus using your respected model of logic is it not agreeable that the model with the least holes is superior?
Science leaves a lot of holes and even with contributions done within scientific minds you filter specific conclusions out to hold your perspective as right and flawless. The most obvious example of this in your post was when @ThePiper claimed aspects of evidence and you said only studies and conclusions done by sources you deem credible should be considered. You see that idea is a limitation. You are not exploring your mind to find answers. Limitation by ideas is the only enemy to your consciousness, in which you have set for yourself. This is by looking through a lens and seeing the lens of perspective as right. Well can you tell me how Jesus turned water into wine?
The scientific skeptic would call it nothing but hoax and malarky. The poetic may call it metaphor. The Christians believe he was one with God. The valueless consider anything until it makes more sense than the previous models.
Even, in the event of, somebody posting a video of turning water into wine it would simply be deemed fraud and an in person example would be demanded. After an in person display it would be analyzed scientifically to find reason to fit the scientific model. Things such as "He used nanobots to discolor the wine and when he snapped his fingers the sound frequency was programmed to command the nanobots to restore to original consistency of the wine." Our world is dead of art, creativity, and magic because we've been programmed to belief systems. Rarely do people explore outside the comfort zone into uncertainty. Even in recent times there have been acts of miracle performed such as contemporary energy healing. See the mind has to see impossible to be able to imagine impossible.
In order for the mind to explore outside it self the biochemical integration of a plant must happen. You said you read creativity does not improve on drugs? It doesn't matter what you read. Those people simply didn't succeed. Set and setting are known to completely change experiences on many substances. See the reaction isn't of simple biochemistry it highly likely that it has essence. We can correlate the fact natural DMT is within all life plants, animal, and human alike, and the experiences of DMT reported on the internet and in Rick Strassman's study done down in New Mexico represent reality beyond this Earth when looked at in a fair non-conditioned perspective. Before contemporary capitalism and the fiending for value in gadget collection: drugs, magic, shamanism where all around the world and still remain in areas advancements haven't destroyed. People did drugs and had a high respect for drugs all around the world. In India the Rig Veda is chalk full of poetry:
"Heaven above does not equal one half of me.
Have I been drinking soma?
In my glory I have passed beyond earth and sky.
Have I been drinking soma?
I will pick up the earth and put it here or there.
Have I been drinking soma?"
X 119, 7-9
Rig Veda
It was reported that peasants would drink the piss of the rich to attain the effects of soma in the context of soma being the Fly Agaric. It is generally thought that Soma is not one substance but any drug.
Most people feel they have an opinion of reality when they study nothing. I feel I have educated myself fairly decently in many contexts, and hope my views can shed some light on the impacts of the mind done by culture I believe to be true. The fact I don't have credentials and haven't been rewarded a PHD by an institute respected on a large scale means nothing to the value of the idea presented. How can there be evidence to what I propose when It is ideas unheard of. You can take it for what it is worth or decide what it is worth, and either way I tried.
Forgive me for any spelling or grammatical error as this was typed as if talking.
Before drugs I was anxious, scared, and unknowing of what was real because surely this garbage can't be my life, and it isn't.
Last edited:
I will try to be as concise in my responses as possible because that's a lott. Once again, thanks for your thoughtful response in advance.
1. Science isn't a school of thought. Scientific evidence = any conclusion reached based on the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, test, reevaluate, etc.). Religion is subjective as you say, whereas science is not. You can deny science without evidence and be wrong all you like, with religion you can deny any of it and be right (or wrong, who really knows?).
2. How are ideas our greatest enemy?
3. "High metaphysics of consciousness"... So I'm going to address this first by saying I used to think similar things. I've had some pretty profound experiences in that regard. I dismiss them though. The mind is fallible, and you can't trust what your mind concludes while you are not in your right mind.
4. Determining what constitutes the meaning of "genius" is subjective. If you go to the most common reference to genius, being those with an IQ of over 140, you'd actually see upon research that the term "genius" didn't mean someone was a messiah of intelligence. I wouldn't say that "genius" necessarily would have to be something that contradicts conventions and contemporary thought. There are many things that could be called "genius" within that criterion and outside of it as well. If you were to defy all conventions everytime they are set, you would just be a contrarian.
5. If someone feels that material objects are more important to them than people, how are they immoral? If they feel that humans should have no regards for their effects on the environment in pursuit of said objects, then yes, it would be immoral. But, morals are subjective too. Back to the point, there are people who have been constantly betrayed by loved ones and do not want to be hurt anymore, so they just pursue their career and keep to themselves. At the same time, they don't want to see Earth turned into a fried egg, and try their best to stay away from it. Is that really immoral? If it is, unfortunately ya gotta go back to "morals are subjective". Say there's a person with an obsession for fur coats. Can you objectively prove that it's immoral for them to pursue that interest and wear fur coats? Is it immoral to raise animals like cows and chickens just to slaughter and eat them? Is it not immoral to kill and eat plants if it's also immoral to eat animals? Is it immoral to use disinfectant to kill bacteria? Killing is killing. Unless you feel that some lives are worth more than others, which is certainly subjective too. Sadly with subjective arguments, there's no objective answer other than the one that two parties can compromise on.
6. "Utopia" seems to be an subjective idea as well. My idea of "utopia" is one where 100% of basic needs are met for humans (energy, water, housing, food, etc.). I can easily see many alternatives to my idea that would be equally valid.
7. I haven't discussed the cause of my "decency with society" because it was never questioned (I think). I'd agree that cultural values do play a role. But, I also feel that the best way to make change is to make it within society, rather than thumbing your nose up at it. Those that thumb their nose get ignored and aren't respected, even if their ideas are valuable. And, to be real, society has its flaws, but it keeps my basic necessities met. You have to show gratitude for that.
8. "Destroy your values completely with no regret", this is not something you've literally done. I get what you mean, though. Shed the labels and the prescribed thoughts/feelings/values. Make your own based on your experiences and observations. At least that's how I interpret what you're saying. That's how I think of life, although I place tremendous emphasis on objectivity. To quote the "Zen master" Seng-ts'an: "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between for and against is the mind's worst disease."
9. When I referred to people crying conspiracy, I meant to characterize a group of people that is truly contrarian at heart and points out illusory correlations non-stop in regards to the government. For some reason, they think governments are evil and are conspiring against the masses. You really have to step away from your computer and dark rooms and actually see and experience what goes on the corporate and government worlds. They aren't trying to hurt people. You have to experience that for yourself though. About holes in the ego that are shown through defensive language, I don't think it's necessarily the ego that has the holes there, it's more of the person's argument itself. Unless you consider yourself to be arguing purely from the ego, which is sort of a nebulous term in itself.
10. About the credible evidence thing, there are many sources on the internet, in particular the ones that cry conspiracy like infowars.com that are ridiculed when analyzed by real scientists in their respective fields. I'll give a direct example. I watched a Tedtalk presentation of a neuroscientist who said that mental disorders can be diagnosed with brain scans. It seemed really convincing. He was arguing that the system was doing it wrong. When real neuroscientists analyzed his claims though, they were truly disappointed that such a dishonest person could be so popular and convincing. Neuroscientists aren't able to diagnose mental disorders from brain scans yet, that's the cold hard truth, and the man knew it. In his private practice in California, he prescribes patients the same medications any psychiatrist would, but adds in products from his own line of supplements. He's ridiculous, just like so many others that cry conspiracy on "the system". For another example, the whole 911 "jet fuel can't melt steel beams argument". It seems so convincing at first, until people who really knew what they were talking about analyzed that argument and saw that it was ridiculous. Now "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is an meme on the internet because of how ridiculous that is. It's akin to the tinfoil hat meme. That's why I always ask if sources are credible. They have to be from respected universities, or reviewed by them at least. There are far too many people in this world who would love to tell you a lie and profit on it, especially those that cry "conspiracy" on the system.
11. "you're not exploring your mind to find answers", well first, any answer I come up with is definitely in my mind. About the answer being reached by exploring my mind, the truth is, answers to most questions can't be found by just thinking about them. You have to get evidence and form your opinion off of it, usually. Otherwise you're just hypothesizing.
12. About your claim that science would eliminate the mysticism of someone who was able to turn water into wine, it's sort of a misunderstanding about science to say that it makes things less cool or intriguing. It really makes it a lot more cool. A scientific discovery is usually very complex and interesting, and has great implications for things that are related to the discovery. Science should be seen as giving color to mysteries, rather than taking that color away, in my opinion. I think the fact that the uncertainty of the answer to a burning question is eliminated by scientific discovery is what takes away that color for some people. You just have to learn to see the color in objective complexity. About "Jesus" turning water into wine, yeah I'd say it was just a story. Religious texts were made specifically to help control and unite populaces (or at least, this is what I could surmise from my college class that analyzed history and how religion impacted it). It's equally helpful and harmful, but it's probably necessary. People need to feel like they belong, and religion is good at doing just that.
13. Define essence. And give credible evidence to support the existence of an "essence".
14. The fact that you do not have a PhD does not invalidate your arguments automatically by any means. If someone were to tell you "stfu, you don't have x degree", that would be an Ad Hominem logical fallacy, meaning the opposition to your argument attacked you rather than your argument, which does not actually disprove your argument. Credibility is called into question when studies and evidence come into play. The reason for this is that I can publish a scientific paper saying that based on my studies, apples kill 100% of people. If I'm not publishing this study through a university, people will disregard my study, and rightfully so. The reason is because the quality of the study itself is directly in question. In this example it's likely that I manipulated the study specifically to get that outcome, e.g., I used one person as a sample size, without a control group. About your anxiety and such, I hold my argument that I feel that you probably did that on your own and drugs were not responsible for it. You matured. Some similar things happened to me, as I was saying stuff similar to what you're saying two years ago. I'd say getting away from all that and really integrating with society and finding purpose within it was the most important and meaningful thing I could have done. The mind can come across some pretty odd things, although I would not say that what you say is necessarily 100% unfounded, it just focusses too much on existentialism, which for me at least made me feel dissociated. My feelings about existence are that we just are. Things just are. There's no meaning to existence on a grand scheme (at least that we know, maybe there are biological processes that we are a part of that we are unaware of). Life's just beautiful and complex, that's all that really can be said for the time being. It's also important to recognize that while many ideas seem to make sense, they may not be true, and should not be regarded as true until proven.
One key thing argument-wise is to enter an argument with the understanding that you can be wrong, and that you should be willing to change your mind if the evidence proves you wrong. Furthermore, when you don't have real evidence for an idea, you should present an idea as an idea, and not as fact. Both facts and ideas are useful, as ideas lead people to investigate them and solidify them as facts (or reasonably close to facts). I think I did my best at meeting those criteria; I am in a college class that revolves around debates so I try to pass on the info so that arguments become more productive.
Last edited:
@JKE
Question 2 shows me you didn't understand my post at all. My whole post was about that.
To quickly answer question 1 you just described a school of thought.
The rules are ideas which limit
In question 8 You posted a quote for in which you haven't displayed support of in your posts, and in which I have, and made an assumption of my life in the first line. The experiments I've done to myself to understand go beyond what most people do. How many people self-hypnotize themselves against what they want? Coworkers have thought me as a player and women mack based on my personality and appearance I suppose, but truth is I'm more of a nerd than that.
Question 4 Genius has nothing to do with IQ and has been debated within philosophy. I made reference to the idea of genius most respected.
Question 3 shows disrespect simply. You insinuate I believe everything I think of. I don't stop thinking mate. I'm always staring into nothing. My friends say I'm always deep in thought or doped up in bliss.
Question 11 is based off the scientific model and shows a lack of understanding of my previous post, in a double whammy. Firstly you haven't understood my argument against the scientific model, and you haven't understood my idea of perspective and how attachment to an ideology changes perspective.
Question 13 Essence. Life Spirit. Movement. Outside influence. Time to consider spirits and souls. Here's a quick example I like to bring into focus. The idea of depression. Depression is caused by chronic negative thoughts. If you want to argue that good luck. What is a negative thought? A series of words that reflect notion. Negative thoughts are subjective in nature. Humans classify pain as negative, and joy as positive. That is obvious. But how is it that as evolved mammals, and bags of chemicals with no meaning, that our biochemistry can change based on notions that are subjectively negative. Biochemistry changing in a way that the physical body hurts and the mental mind is clouded. A nice thought to entertain.
Question 7 Society is disgusting. The business of control is a priority among dominators. To say we are not being dominated shows a lack of empathy. I have gratitude for the essence of life, my acts of human decency, my life, my knowledge, my food, and yes I do have gratitude for your society as it shows an example of the perfect dystopia. I will leave you to think on those words.
Question 9 The ego is not understood by most people and is interpreted differently due to models of perspective, either scientific or spiritual
As a final statement I would like you to find contradictions in my model. As your model is looking pretty weak and lackluster. Which goes back to my earlier notion of the superior model being the one with less holes. We don't know a whole lot and I understand the psychology of word choosing vs notion too well
This is deep in philosophy. To be a Philosopher is to entertain thought in which you don't believe.
Question 2 shows me you didn't understand my post at all. My whole post was about that.
To quickly answer question 1 you just described a school of thought.
The rules are ideas which limit
In question 8 You posted a quote for in which you haven't displayed support of in your posts, and in which I have, and made an assumption of my life in the first line. The experiments I've done to myself to understand go beyond what most people do. How many people self-hypnotize themselves against what they want? Coworkers have thought me as a player and women mack based on my personality and appearance I suppose, but truth is I'm more of a nerd than that.
Question 4 Genius has nothing to do with IQ and has been debated within philosophy. I made reference to the idea of genius most respected.
Question 3 shows disrespect simply. You insinuate I believe everything I think of. I don't stop thinking mate. I'm always staring into nothing. My friends say I'm always deep in thought or doped up in bliss.
Question 11 is based off the scientific model and shows a lack of understanding of my previous post, in a double whammy. Firstly you haven't understood my argument against the scientific model, and you haven't understood my idea of perspective and how attachment to an ideology changes perspective.
Question 13 Essence. Life Spirit. Movement. Outside influence. Time to consider spirits and souls. Here's a quick example I like to bring into focus. The idea of depression. Depression is caused by chronic negative thoughts. If you want to argue that good luck. What is a negative thought? A series of words that reflect notion. Negative thoughts are subjective in nature. Humans classify pain as negative, and joy as positive. That is obvious. But how is it that as evolved mammals, and bags of chemicals with no meaning, that our biochemistry can change based on notions that are subjectively negative. Biochemistry changing in a way that the physical body hurts and the mental mind is clouded. A nice thought to entertain.
Question 7 Society is disgusting. The business of control is a priority among dominators. To say we are not being dominated shows a lack of empathy. I have gratitude for the essence of life, my acts of human decency, my life, my knowledge, my food, and yes I do have gratitude for your society as it shows an example of the perfect dystopia. I will leave you to think on those words.
Question 9 The ego is not understood by most people and is interpreted differently due to models of perspective, either scientific or spiritual
As a final statement I would like you to find contradictions in my model. As your model is looking pretty weak and lackluster. Which goes back to my earlier notion of the superior model being the one with less holes. We don't know a whole lot and I understand the psychology of word choosing vs notion too well
This is deep in philosophy. To be a Philosopher is to entertain thought in which you don't believe.
Last edited:
@JKE I see many flaws with your arguments in this thread, while I agree with you in some respects, a lot of you logic is misguided and unscientific.
my point stands that MJ is being kept illegal because it is not safe, or at least, all of the risks have not been fully evaluated. Prominent research institutions that are heavily involved in this debate like John Hopkins and the Imperial College London have both put out studies saying that MJ has clear risks of "brain damage", or whatever you'd like to call it.
It's not a matter of safety, it is a matter of legislation on a federal level, what you preach, let government decide what is better for us? Is absolutely ludicrous, I don't know about you, but I don't want my government telling me how to think, how to live my life and how to be an individual. To address the studies above, there has never been a recorded death from MJ use. Any and all damage associated with MJ is temporary and it has been shown on numerous studies.
And in any case, it's better for drugs to be in the hands of licensed professionals who spent many years studying medicine to be able to make the determination of whether or not someone should have something.
Another flawed argument, Big Pharma is a multi-Billion dollar industry in the US alone. When was the last time you turned the TV on and didn't see a commercial for Viagra or some other such medicine? Doctors make a ton of money, recommending medications such as that one, they get paid extra in many cases to push certain brands. But you say "Doctors have the proper knowledge". The people that know the most about you, is you. I am not suggesting not seeing a doctor when you get sick, but open your eyes, The government doesn't give a sh*t about you or me as long as you pay your taxes and follow the masses like a good little boy.
As EQ puts it, "The greatest enemy to all of us is ideas. Including Science. Science is an institution of thought similar to religion."
you can't expect to use one recreationally and not have some sort of long-term negative effects
Are you speaking from experience? It certainly doesn't seem so, I don't typically discuss my private life in detail (anywhere), but in this case, I will make an exception. I have used many substances through out my life, I have found the right balance for myself for the person I chose to be today. Does that make me a criminal or a bad person? Just because I chose to follow my own path, it doesn't mean we are any different.
"Psychoactive substances in nature aren't here out of the contradictory big bang", what do you mean by "contradictory", and what is your evidence for that? This may be your understanding of it, but I don't feel like that's scientifically supported.
The evidence is in thousands of years of human existence and the many cultures that have used it for spiritual, medicinal or even recreational use. Most of these plants grow in the wild, how could this contradict science or evolution?
Secondly, food and sex addictions are certainly healthier for the person to be addicted to than many substances like cocaine, meth, alcohol, or heroin (on a basis of safety). Why the emphasis on sex addictions by the way? I've never heard anyone really argue about it and I am uninformed in that regard.
This is perhaps the most obscene statement I have read! For a person defending scientific data, this is an extremely obtuse statement to make. Sex and food addiction are very serious problems in this country. The obesity rate in the US in growing at an alarming rate. Obesity leads to many if not more problems than some of the drugs you have mentioned.
While I am not disagreeing with you entirely, I think many of your arguments are unfounded and lacking in the very means by which you assert them. NOTHING beats life experience.
my point stands that MJ is being kept illegal because it is not safe, or at least, all of the risks have not been fully evaluated. Prominent research institutions that are heavily involved in this debate like John Hopkins and the Imperial College London have both put out studies saying that MJ has clear risks of "brain damage", or whatever you'd like to call it.
It's not a matter of safety, it is a matter of legislation on a federal level, what you preach, let government decide what is better for us? Is absolutely ludicrous, I don't know about you, but I don't want my government telling me how to think, how to live my life and how to be an individual. To address the studies above, there has never been a recorded death from MJ use. Any and all damage associated with MJ is temporary and it has been shown on numerous studies.
And in any case, it's better for drugs to be in the hands of licensed professionals who spent many years studying medicine to be able to make the determination of whether or not someone should have something.
Another flawed argument, Big Pharma is a multi-Billion dollar industry in the US alone. When was the last time you turned the TV on and didn't see a commercial for Viagra or some other such medicine? Doctors make a ton of money, recommending medications such as that one, they get paid extra in many cases to push certain brands. But you say "Doctors have the proper knowledge". The people that know the most about you, is you. I am not suggesting not seeing a doctor when you get sick, but open your eyes, The government doesn't give a sh*t about you or me as long as you pay your taxes and follow the masses like a good little boy.
As EQ puts it, "The greatest enemy to all of us is ideas. Including Science. Science is an institution of thought similar to religion."
you can't expect to use one recreationally and not have some sort of long-term negative effects
Are you speaking from experience? It certainly doesn't seem so, I don't typically discuss my private life in detail (anywhere), but in this case, I will make an exception. I have used many substances through out my life, I have found the right balance for myself for the person I chose to be today. Does that make me a criminal or a bad person? Just because I chose to follow my own path, it doesn't mean we are any different.
"Psychoactive substances in nature aren't here out of the contradictory big bang", what do you mean by "contradictory", and what is your evidence for that? This may be your understanding of it, but I don't feel like that's scientifically supported.
The evidence is in thousands of years of human existence and the many cultures that have used it for spiritual, medicinal or even recreational use. Most of these plants grow in the wild, how could this contradict science or evolution?
Secondly, food and sex addictions are certainly healthier for the person to be addicted to than many substances like cocaine, meth, alcohol, or heroin (on a basis of safety). Why the emphasis on sex addictions by the way? I've never heard anyone really argue about it and I am uninformed in that regard.
This is perhaps the most obscene statement I have read! For a person defending scientific data, this is an extremely obtuse statement to make. Sex and food addiction are very serious problems in this country. The obesity rate in the US in growing at an alarming rate. Obesity leads to many if not more problems than some of the drugs you have mentioned.
While I am not disagreeing with you entirely, I think many of your arguments are unfounded and lacking in the very means by which you assert them. NOTHING beats life experience.
Last edited:
I'd love to respond to this, but we have derailed this topic enough.
If you mean brain damage in regards to kava, I know that there is little/no risk. I'm pretty sure that's what my first post in this thread said.
yepimonfire
Kava Enthusiast
ondance-a-tron
Kava Curious
Oh man, this thread. I have my own thoughts and don't entirely agree with either side (the whole philosophy vs science thing) but I don't want to potentially misinterpret something as I got confused many times while reading so I'll just say I've got nearly no clue what the point of this debate was...
Welp there's my useless post of the day.
Welp there's my useless post of the day.
To summarize:
It is not anything versus science. I love science.
It is attacking attachment to science or any ideology imposed by culture... big difference.
This is a whole different world of argument than typical religious nonsense vs science. Religion contradicts itself the most and fails it's initial notions as well. I believe the Buddha would be quite displeased with his influence.
Lot's of scientists misrepresent the initial notion of science.
I'm not going to get into the contradictions because I could seriously write a thousand page book on this topic against ideas. I've literally thought about writing that book, I just see no value in it as society is too far gone in the rabbit hole, and real change won't happen. At least not from a book that people would have a tough time understanding. When people argue that natural growing psychoactive plants should be illegal ON A NATURAL PLANT DRUG FORUM that is when you know there is no point.
You could actually label my whole course as creativity. Creativity is an idea to explain reality of what you know to be creativity. Creativity isn't based on rationalizing with past ideas directly. The Flow State in psychology this and that and all other labels that are just nonsense. No such thing as creativity. Just unrestricted thought free from limitation. My creative ability has increased 10 fold compared to back when I was 17. People get caught up in these ideas that you are born like this, Sheila is creative, Bob is good at darts, and you can clean up the garbage. Ideas repress everybody's potential and this society supports the intellectual, creative, emotional, and sexual repression either purposefully or not I hate the machine. We jumped into tangents of control from the government who impose their ideas to create the reality they want. Most people I talk to have a lot of beef with this society, but often are just too dis empowered to stand up against the force of bullshit.
To really generalize this all started to devalue arguments for the restriction on drugs, and went into the deep notions of ideas that regulate reality on the full picture scale. Not just drug regulation. Arguments made against me on the value of human life vs animals and all types of weirdness from an objectivists lens really shows the brilliance of it.
So many weak models of thought. Think on your own is the point.
Last edited:
ondance-a-tron
Kava Curious
Now that you put it like this I'm having a better time understanding. It was probably the wording of some parts that made me assume it was some weird philosophy vs science debate in the later posts or my own poor reading comprehension and half-skimming. Rereading the discussion though, I'm somewhat reminded of people who believe or imply they believe because a drug isn't illegal or is prescribed it must automatically be much safer than any alternatives...
KavaKitty
Meaow
I agree. I use Kava to study, as well as for work, and I'm 100% more than efficient since I started doing so.
boxcar beatnik
Kava Enthusiast
I got 150 points higher on my SAT the second time taking it and i studied and took the rest on kava. My retention and recall was much better.
tribal1209
Kava Enthusiast
Kind of comes with adulthood my friend. You are never certain 100% about anything in a place where everything is built to expire.
When I use some tobacco I could very well end up with cancer....or not
When I drink some beer everyday to unwind I could develop a number of health issues.....or not
I could be killed driving to work tommorow.....or not
I could be hospitalized with food poisoning by trying that home in the wall mexican joint that has race reviews..or not.
My point is at times all we can do is gather as many facts as we can and move forward if the benefits outweigh the potential risks. Or you can simply eat white rice everyday and sit in a corner after you get home from the office.
When I use some tobacco I could very well end up with cancer....or not
When I drink some beer everyday to unwind I could develop a number of health issues.....or not
I could be killed driving to work tommorow.....or not
I could be hospitalized with food poisoning by trying that home in the wall mexican joint that has race reviews..or not.
My point is at times all we can do is gather as many facts as we can and move forward if the benefits outweigh the potential risks. Or you can simply eat white rice everyday and sit in a corner after you get home from the office.