LSD and the surrealist
Dale Houstman
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8bcfa...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
>
> If anyone is comfortable discussing their past deviance...
No deviance...
>
> Would anyone here say that LSD greatly affected the way they
> view surrealism? Maybe it introduced you to surrealism?
I wouldn't say LSD greatly affected the way I view surrealism, but I imafine
it had something to do with it. The main effect of the drug (in my case)
appears to be a breaking down of easy barriers between concepts and physical
reality. It tends to allow a certain easier drift between ideas. This could
certainly be of use in poetic exploration, and I think it was. But
surrealism itself - or should I say my reification of latent surrealism in
myself (after the sensationalism of Dali) came mainly via my discovery of
Rimbaud and through him the more central "motifs and theories" of
Breton/Desnos/Duchamp/Artaud. Once it became an intellectual pursuit, the
importance of LSD (slight at any rate) faded and - in fact - became a
hinderance.
>
>
> Any specific experiences worth mentioning?
Later: I'm in a hurry. "Woke up, fell out of bed, dragged a comb across my
head."
>
DMH
Aeon
>No deviance...
some would argue that partaking in recreational drugs is deviant.
Yet I'd be the first to agree that it really isn't.
>I wouldn't say LSD greatly affected the way I view surrealism, but I imafine
>it had something to do with it. The main effect of the drug (in my case)
>appears to be a breaking down of easy barriers between concepts and physical
>reality. It tends to allow a certain easier drift between ideas. This could
>certainly be of use in poetic exploration, and I think it was. But
>surrealism itself - or should I say my reification of latent surrealism in
>myself (after the sensationalism of Dali) came mainly via my discovery of
>Rimbaud and through him the more central "motifs and theories" of
>Breton/Desnos/Duchamp/Artaud. Once it became an intellectual pursuit, the
>importance of LSD (slight at any rate) faded and - in fact - became a
>hinderance.
If I am understanding you correctly, I feel that it affected me much the
same way.
The first time, it opened these incredible places that I'd never seen or
felt before. I was literally awe-struck.
The next time, I was able to explore the newly broken barriers to perception,
and some very incredible concepts (they seemed incredible at the time, but
since I've either realized they really weren't, or I've lost the ability to
think about them in the same way).
I found that it helped release me from some strange "rules" I had been
following in my art. It showed me that any way you put the page is the right
side up. It showed me that simply because a page already has work on it,
doesn't mean you can't go right overtop of it.
It helped reveal the use of doing multiple drawings on one page, that
drawing someone who is extremely mobile isn't hard at all... and so on.
As far as surrealism goes... I'm uncertain as to whether it really revealed
anything new to me there at all. (but that's because I don't have a solid
definition of surrealism and it's role in my life, and at the time I
dropped, I wasn't too interested in surrealism).
>> Any specific experiences worth mentioning?
>
>Later: I'm in a hurry. "Woke up, fell out of bed, dragged a comb across my
>head."
>>
>DMH
indeed.
--
- What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
- remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
Brandon J. Freels
> Or maybe, has anyone here done LSD and feels that it has nothing
> to do with surrealism for some crazy reason?
Altered States of Consciousness are not really the same as Surreality. While
they are of some interest to Surrealism the two states should not be
confused with one another. Breton speaks about this in one of the
Manifestoes, something about the imagery produced by a certain drug [I
forget which one] is very close to the imagery of Surreality.
Parry
>
> If anyone is comfortable discussing their past deviance...
>
> view surrealism? Maybe it introduced you to surrealism?
>
> to do with surrealism for some crazy reason?
I experimented with different drugs when I was a kid, and have mixed
feelings about them. Psychedelic drugs induce an alien psychological
state from which there is no escape, so the access to a new viewpoint is
their chief benefit. After repeated use, though, a drug’s effects become
predictable, manageable, and ultimately restricting -- I would find
myself just waiting for the drug to wear off so I could have full use of
my capacities again. I concluded that the drugs did not enhance my
imagination, and lost all interest. Music may sound interesting under
the influence, but what good does that do me unless I’m going to be
stoned all of the time? Films may taken on an unusual life under the
influence, but rev-visiting them while I sober I discovered that I
missed much of the content while I was entranced by the colours. Then
there is the question of long-term effects. For example, I have a poor
memory for details, and have to wonder if this is a result of my drug
phase. Of course, the question can’t be answered, because I cannot know
what my memory would be like had I never tried drugs. While
experimentation is important, axiomatically, in the final tally I think
drugs have nothing to do with surrealism. Surrealism seeks to expand
reality, but drugs offer only an escape from reality. I view drugs, even
alcohol, as a complete waste of time.
>
> Any specific experiences worth mentioning?
The most memorable incident happened not with acid but with ether.
Pushed to the border of unconsciousness, I had the distinct feeling that
my body was splitting into two entities, one remaining in the chair and
the other looking down. This appeared to be like the out-of-body
experiences which people were reporting having had on operating tables,
under the influence of their own anesthesia. This and other drug
encounters only confirmed materialism for me, as it became obvious to me
that what others called psychic experiences were the result of extreme
fluctuations in their sensory input.
>
> Also, if you've done it, has it affected your surrealist works/
> poetry/art in some way?
>
> orlan
>
> --
>
> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>
> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
Your signature recalls the old Richard Thompson song “Hokey Pokey” which
I’ve always interpreted as being about oral sex.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Brandon J. Freels
> Can you explain the differences between altered states of conciousness
> and surreality?
Surreality is the freedom of the mind. An ASC is brought on by an exterior
chemical which *manipulates* the mind to have certain reactions. One who is
manipulated is not free.
Aeon
>> to do with surrealism for some crazy reason?
>Altered States of Consciousness are not really the same as Surreality. While
>they are of some interest to Surrealism the two states should not be
>confused with one another. Breton speaks about this in one of the
>Manifestoes, something about the imagery produced by a certain drug [I
>forget which one] is very close to the imagery of Surreality.
Can you explain the differences between altered states of conciousness
and surreality?
I know very little of surrealism, but I've found altered states of
conciousness to serve as a door to the imagination at times.
LSD itself produces a state of dreaming while one is awake. From what
little I know of surrealism, I believe that the imagination, and dreams
are a large part of it.
Aeon
>feelings about them. Psychedelic drugs induce an alien psychological
>state from which there is no escape, so the access to a new viewpoint is
>their chief benefit. After repeated use, though, a drug’s effects become
>predictable, manageable, and ultimately restricting -- I would find
>myself just waiting for the drug to wear off so I could have full use of
>my capacities again. I concluded that the drugs did not enhance my
This is almost exactly my experience with psychedelics. At first they
truly were an incredible experience. With time, I felt the same as you
mention above.
Yet, did those early experiences result in anything beneficial to
you and did it affect your particular approach to surrealism?
>there is the question of long-term effects. For example, I have a poor
>memory for details, and have to wonder if this is a result of my drug
>phase. Of course, the question can’t be answered, because I cannot know
>what my memory would be like had I never tried drugs. While
Who knows. I don't even want to start arguing about how the drugs may
or may not have affected anyone.
I hope nobody feels I am attempting to advocate using drugs... I was just
wondering if anyone else had any opinions or views as to how they might
have affected the "surrealist" portion of their lives.
>experimentation is important, axiomatically, in the final tally I think
>drugs have nothing to do with surrealism. Surrealism seeks to expand
>reality, but drugs offer only an escape from reality. I view drugs, even
>alcohol, as a complete waste of time.
At this moment in time, I've come to the same conclusion... though I would
not necessarily say that at some point in the future I wouldn't find them
useful.
Does surrealism seek to expand reality? Is a drug experience truly an
escape from "reality?"
I feel that a drug experience is part of reality.
>The most memorable incident happened not with acid but with ether.
>Pushed to the border of unconsciousness, I had the distinct feeling that
>my body was splitting into two entities, one remaining in the chair and
>the other looking down. This appeared to be like the out-of-body
>experiences which people were reporting having had on operating tables,
>under the influence of their own anesthesia. This and other drug
>encounters only confirmed materialism for me, as it became obvious to me
>that what others called psychic experiences were the result of extreme
>fluctuations in their sensory input.
Yes. I came to the realization that my very personality was simply a
combination of chemicals in my brain that could be altered and rearranged
at times...
I realized that conciousness itself is simply the result of chemical
reactions in the brain.
>> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>>
>> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
>
>Your signature recalls the old Richard Thompson song “Hokey Pokey” which
>I’ve always interpreted as being about oral sex.
Well, oral sex is certainly what my life is all about.
kristina
> >I experimented with different drugs when I was a kid, and have mixed
> >feelings about them. Psychedelic drugs induce an alien psychological
> >state from which there is no escape, so the access to a new viewpoint is
> >their chief benefit. After repeated use, though, a drug's effects become
> >predictable, manageable, and ultimately restricting -- I would find
> >myself just waiting for the drug to wear off so I could have full use of
> >my capacities again. I concluded that the drugs did not enhance my
>
> This is almost exactly my experience with psychedelics. At first they
> truly were an incredible experience. With time, I felt the same as you
> mention above.
>
> Yet, did those early experiences result in anything beneficial to
> you and did it affect your particular approach to surrealism?
>
> >there is the question of long-term effects. For example, I have a poor
> >memory for details, and have to wonder if this is a result of my drug
> >phase. Of course, the question can't be answered, because I cannot know
> >what my memory would be like had I never tried drugs. While
>
> Who knows. I don't even want to start arguing about how the drugs may
> or may not have affected anyone.
>
> I hope nobody feels I am attempting to advocate using drugs... I was just
> wondering if anyone else had any opinions or views as to how they might
> have affected the "surrealist" portion of their lives.
I don't know about anyone else, but for me, the effect of using drugs
intraveneously was incredibly intense, and to this day (some seven years
since having experienced that) I still have this taste of smack or speed at
the back of my throat when seeing that tiny moment in time when the blood
pumps through the syringe.
I really don't know if it was the actual drugs that did that for me, or the
physical sensation of breaking skin and seeing blood -- I assume from my own
feelings that it is most likely a combination of the two. I think if I had
money to burn, I'd be well into it again... but of course, the physical and
mental, emotional drawbacks of the more negative effects of such things is
to be taken into account.
In answer to the question at topic at hand, I would say it was one of the
more surreal experiences of my life (in a very overt and confronting way).
I guess it brings up perspectives in a very intense manner. I haven't
really thought about this, and how it relates to my imagination or creative
ideas now, but I wouldn't say that the experiences I've had made me any more
aware of surrealism as such. Nevertheless... a hell of alot of fun!
But admittedly, there is nothing in the world like smack pumping through
your veins. Everyone should try it! Right now! I am a firm advocate and
believer in drugs... keep away if you are prone to addictions -- ha ha ha.
I think I just swapped mine for something else...
Kristina.
diva...@my-deja.com
EATME...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >I experimented with different drugs when I was a kid, and have mixed
> >feelings about them. Psychedelic drugs induce an alien psychological
> >state from which there is no escape, so the access to a new viewpoint is
> >their chief benefit. After repeated use, though, a drug’s effects become
> >predictable, manageable, and ultimately restricting -- I would find
> >myself just waiting for the drug to wear off so I could have full use of
> >my capacities again. I concluded that the drugs did not enhance my
> I hate drugs.The mind has a great imagination.
Some people prefer/need a kick-start. Life still startles me.
> This is almost exactly my experience with psychedelics. At first they
> truly were an incredible experience. With time, I felt the same as you
> mention above.
>
> Yet, did those early experiences result in anything beneficial to
> you and did it affect your particular approach to surrealism?
>
> >there is the question of long-term effects. For example, I have a poor
> >memory for details, and have to wonder if this is a result of my drug
> >phase. Of course, the question can’t be answered, because I cannot know
> >what my memory would be like had I never tried drugs. While
>
> Who knows. I don't even want to start arguing about how the drugs may
> or may not have affected anyone.
>
> I hope nobody feels I am attempting to advocate using drugs... I was just
> wondering if anyone else had any opinions or views as to how they might
> have affected the "surrealist" portion of their lives.
> "surrealist" parenthesied
why?
> >experimentation is important, axiomatically, in the final tally I think
> >drugs have nothing to do with surrealism. Surrealism seeks to expand
> >reality, but drugs offer only an escape from reality. I view drugs, even
> >alcohol, as a complete waste of time.
>
> At this moment in time, I've come to the same conclusion... though I would
> not necessarily say that at some point in the future I wouldn't find them
> useful.
>Straddling the fence.
>
> Does surrealism seek to expand reality? Is a drug experience truly an
> escape from "reality?"
> Reality is always there for the realist.
Reality...now that is something to wonder about,
and maybe grasp.
> I feel that a drug experience is part of reality.
> What the hell did you just say?
> >The most memorable incident happened not with acid but with ether.
> Ooh my mother had ether.
and I was her most memrorable experience.
> >Pushed to the border of unconsciousness, I had the distinct feeling that
> >my body was splitting into
>so did she....
two entities, one remaining in the chair and
> >the other looking down. This appeared to be like the out-of-body
> nee nee nee
> mommy and me
> >experiences which people were reporting having had on operating tables,
> >under the influence of their own anesthesia. This and other drug
> >encounters only confirmed materialism for me,
> ( as in the Gap"?)
as it became obvious to me
> >that what others called psychic experiences were the result of extreme
> >fluctuations in their sensory input.
> Psychic experiences =sensory input? What was Dionne Warwick ever thinking? 1-900-psychic?
Or 1-900-input?
> Yes. I came to the realization that my very personality was simply a
> combination of chemicals in my brain that could be altered and rearranged
> at times.
> Interesting, but what happens when the chemicals inbalance? Or is that just a different personality change?
>
> I realized that conciousness itself is simply the result of chemical
> reactions in the brain.
> Chemical reactions?
What the fuck?
> >> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
> >> I like the hokey pokey..long as I don't have to play.
> >> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
> >
> >Your signature recalls the old Richard Thompson song “Hokey Pokey” which
> >I’ve always interpreted as being about oral sex.
>
> Well, oral sex is certainly what my life is all about.
> oral is good, if I don't speak.
> orlan
> --
>
> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>
> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aeon
>I'd have to lean towards Brandon's point of view. A drug may temporarily
>obscure the rational thinking process and alter one's perceptions - in
>the end it is a manipulator of the brain. What about the long term
>effects? What about the addictive properties? Is there really such thing
>as a happy junkie?
>
>john
What does it matter if it is addictive or not if we are simply assessing
whether the drug experience is surreal or not?
Anyway, if it matters, LSD is not addictive. LSD has been show to have
possible long term effects in the mental arena.
But would being addictive have any affect on whether it is surreal?
Aeon
>almost equal but I really couldn't say that they give me something I
>never had in the first place. It's just like drugs are a turning of the
>door knob that confirms that yes, I can go in and play.
>
>m...
I really like that last sentence.
I've done a lot of "drawing" and automatic writing while under the
influence, but it hasn't served any purpose so far other than being able
to look back and remember how I felt at the time.
Brandon J. Freels
kristina wrote
> I don't necessarily agree with what you are saying Brandon. Drugs are
just
> another tool (so to speak) I don't see them as totally seperate to the
> mind and a person's surreal foundations. I also don't see drugs as
> manipulating the mind -- I see them as an extension and exploration.
How does it *extend* your mind?
Chemically, it simply manipulates. More so, from what I've read, labratory
test studies have tried to pin down the developement of certain
hallucinatory experiences.
A friend recently turned me on to this site discussion entoptics:
http://www.oubliette.zetnet.co.uk/Intro.html
Also:
"David Lewis-Williams and Thomas Dowson (1988) draw similar arguments based
on entoptic phenomena, visual sensations derived from the optic system
anywhere from the eyeball to the visual cortex of the brain. They
distinguish between phosphenes, which they define as being produced in the
eyeball, and form constants arising from the optic system. Basic entoptic
forms are geometrics, especially grids and lattice designs, parallel lines,
dots and flecks, zigzags, nested catenary curves, and filigrees or thin
meandering lines. These elements are the building blocks of southern
California rock art designs and rock art found throughout the world.
Lewis-Williams and Dowson (1988) identify entoptics as a universal product
of stimulation of the nervous system during the first stage of altered
states of consciousness. As one enters trance, the nervous system produces
involuntary entoptic imagery. Because entoptics originate in the optic
nerve, the range of images is limited and shared by all humans regardless of
culture. Only the meanings attached to the images change from group to group
and from time to time." [from http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/Comp/Bill/shamtrad.html ]
john adams
>
> >
> >I'd have to lean towards Brandon's point of view. A drug may temporarily
> >obscure the rational thinking process and alter one's perceptions - in
> >the end it is a manipulator of the brain. What about the long term
> >effects? What about the addictive properties? Is there really such thing
> >as a happy junkie?
> >
> >john
>
> What does it matter if it is addictive or not if we are simply assessing
> whether the drug experience is surreal or not?
>
> Anyway, if it matters, LSD is not addictive. LSD has been show to have
> possible long term effects in the mental arena.
>
> But would being addictive have any affect on whether it is surreal?
>
> orlan
>
Because what we are also discussing is whether it is manipulative. As
Brandon points out that would be antipodal to real freedom. And since
Kristina brought up heroin, i chose to address other drugs as well - yes
highly addictive - although i have never tried it. Have tried LSD, but
only once.
john
Dale Houstman
"kristina" <starf...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:38b92a7b$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:9b3u4.23268$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> > Aeon wrote
> > > Can you explain the differences between altered states of conciousness
> > > and surreality?
> >
exterior
> > chemical which *manipulates* the mind to have certain reactions. One who
> is
> > manipulated is not free.
>
>
> I don't necessarily agree with what you are saying Brandon. Drugs are
just
> another tool (so to speak) I don't see them as totally seperate to the
> mind and a person's surreal foundations. I also don't see drugs as
> manipulating the mind -- I see them as an extension and exploration.
>
> >
Yes I agree with this. I have seen drunken bikers on LSD acting precisely
like - well - drunken bikers. For the most part I have discovered the
effects of drugs to be highly contextualized and (strangely enough perhaps)
neutral in their impact. Most of the benefits and/or drawbacks are more the
result of expectations and limitations and environmental "opportunity" (not
to speak of legal ramifications). There is little doubt - in my mind - that
LSD was an aid in breaking down crippling suppositions precisely when I was
feeling the need to do that. Then after a short time the drug became
superfluous to that process, and turned into mere entertainment: which I
don't denigrate!
There are those people who become enthralled by a drug for various reasons,
although this seems to occur to those most desperately seeking too much in
the experience, who have no limits to their neediness, and who are lacking
in imagniative resources.
But - if we can agree that our brains act as a sort of "filter" for raw
reality, then what we experience on a drug isn't necessarily a distortion,
but a different spectrum. This can be helpful or harmful.
DMH
john adams
>
> "john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:38B989EC...@aol.com...
> > kristina wrote:
> > >
> > > "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9b3u4.23268$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> > > > Aeon wrote
> > > > > Can you explain the differences between altered states of
> conciousness
> > > > > and surreality?
> > > >
> > > > Surreality is the freedom of the mind. An ASC is brought on by an
> exterior
> > > > chemical which *manipulates* the mind to have certain reactions. One
> who
> > > is
> > > > manipulated is not free.
> > >
> > > Yes, yes, I'm still here... just had to reply to this.
> > >
> > > I don't necessarily agree with what you are saying Brandon. Drugs are
> just
> > > another tool (so to speak) I don't see them as totally seperate to the
> > > mind and a person's surreal foundations. I also don't see drugs as
> > > manipulating the mind -- I see them as an extension and exploration.
> > >
> > > Kristina.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > obscure the rational thinking process and alter one's perceptions - in
> > the end it is a manipulator of the brain. What about the long term
> > effects? What about the addictive properties? Is there really such thing
> > as a happy junkie?
>
> relationship to the person? No. The question regarding drugs and
> surrealism -- I don't think drugs make anyone a surrealist, but to say that
> a human being is totally "out of control" (as a simplification) is in
> correct. Naturaslly there are experiences (probably more so with LSD) where
> the reality (so called) is challenged more, but even in that experience, the
> process of connecting to the drug is a very personal one.
>
> As far as addictive properties, and whether or not there is a happy
> junkie -- each person is different again, and not everyone who uses drugs on
> a consistent basis ends up a junkie (horrid little word) or addicted.
>
> The word "manipulation" regarding to drugs and the mind sadly suggests that
> the person is out of control completely and not aware of what is taking
> place -- my own experience indicates that this is far from true, and I've
> done the whole LSD thing too.
>
> All very different drugs, and a hell of alot of fun -- a journey that I
> connected to and explored, not something that totally manipulated me. I
> find this perspective of manipulation rather devoid of the human experience,
> and all too scientific and cold.
>
> Kristina.
>
>
It is this total manipulation you find incorrect, correctly, but not one
ever painted that picture in the discussion. So, i still maintain that
it does manipulate perception and thinking - but of course does not
completely control it - this would be very odd indeed, though.
I read through part of the site you provided, Brandon. I came to the
conclusion that taking natema deep within the ecuadorian forest and
seeing those huge snakes and demons would be quite a wild and exciting
trip! Everyone should probably try it once...
john
Dale Houstman
> It is this total manipulation you find incorrect, correctly, but not one
> ever painted that picture in the discussion. So, i still maintain that
> it does manipulate perception and thinking - but of course does not
> completely control it - this would be very odd indeed, though.
I think we are using different notions of the word "manipulation" here. Even
eating a poptart is a manipulation of your senses and emotions. I don't
think anyone would say drugs don't work on your perceptions: why take them
if they don't? But I think - for the vast majority of users - these
alterations are within their expectations and desires, and not a
manipulation in a power sense. When a person does become addicted - of
course - most of the "benefits" evaporate in a desperate desire to regain
normalcy, which slips away under the misuse and overdose. It is this
epicycle which is best avoided.
>
> I read through part of the site you provided, Brandon. I came to the
> conclusion that taking natema deep within the ecuadorian forest and
> seeing those huge snakes and demons would be quite a wild and exciting
> trip! Everyone should probably try it once...
>
I'll go: you pack the sandwiches and buy the airplane tickets...
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
Aeon wrote
> What does it matter if it is addictive or not if we are simply assessing
> whether the drug experience is surreal or not?
Again, this has to do with a misunderstanding of what Surrealism is.
Surrealism is the freedom of the mind. When you take LSD your mind is not
free but under the dictation of the drug. Understand? Surrealism is the mind
dictating ITSELF!
Brandon J. Freels
> I think - for the vast majority of users - these alterations are within
their expectations
> and desires, and not a manipulation in a power sense.
This is more along the lines of what I was saying. The point is that I don't
envision "Surreality" as an "altered state" of the mind, but instead a "pure
state" of the mind that is void of any chains, restrictions, or steering
wheels. In an "altered state" there is certain degree of "manipulation"
[i.e. alteration] in that the drug has the steering wheel, or at least one
hand on the wheel, and is dictating to some degree where your mind is going.
On the other hand, I think ASC's are somehow connected to Surreality, almost
like a distant cousin or something.
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote
> > I think - for the vast majority of users - these alterations are within
> their expectations
> > and desires, and not a manipulation in a power sense.
>
> This is more along the lines of what I was saying. The point is that I
don't
> envision "Surreality" as an "altered state" of the mind, but instead a
"pure
> state" of the mind that is void of any chains, restrictions, or steering
> wheels. In an "altered state" there is certain degree of "manipulation"
> [i.e. alteration] in that the drug has the steering wheel, or at least one
> hand on the wheel, and is dictating to some degree where your mind is
going.
>
like art, may or may not be an instrumentation of surrealism (Michaux'
marvelous experiments with mescaline, Artaud's South American experiences),
but that neither constitutes surrealism per se, and that surrealism exists
quite handily without either. This goes without saying, even though I said
it!
DMH
kristina
Kristina.
>
> john
kristina
>
> kristina wrote
> > I don't necessarily agree with what you are saying Brandon. Drugs are
> just
> > another tool (so to speak) I don't see them as totally seperate to the
> > mind and a person's surreal foundations. I also don't see drugs as
> > manipulating the mind -- I see them as an extension and exploration.
>
I probably can't describe this in all its entirety but for me, it has never
been a seperation from the drug experience -- the everyday reality just
melds into it, and existence as we know it really isn't that far
challeneged. For sake of argument, sitting down and having some hash,
even -- a coffee, a cigarette, it is all somewhat indulging and pleasurable.
In the same way, other substances, do the same thing. No different. Drugs
are an extension of the current state of mind.
>
> Chemically, it simply manipulates. More so, from what I've read, labratory
> test studies have tried to pin down the developement of certain
> hallucinatory experiences.
Brandon, I really don't bother with the scientific laboratory studies as you
have mentioned here. I guess having experienced things first hand was
enough for me, and still is in knowing how drugs affect, feel, what happens,
what doesn't, the possibilities, etc. People are all different, their drug
experiences which may be similar on occasions, can also vastly vary and
encompass alot -- negative or positive.
I will check out the link as soon as I get some time.
Kristina.
kristina
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:pSgu4.2044$%A3.4...@ptah.visi.com...
> > > Aeon wrote
> > > > Can you explain the differences between altered states of
conciousness
> > > > and surreality?
> > >
> > > Surreality is the freedom of the mind. An ASC is brought on by an
> exterior
> > > chemical which *manipulates* the mind to have certain reactions. One
who
> > is
> > > manipulated is not free.
> >
> > Yes, yes, I'm still here... just had to reply to this.
> >
> just
> > another tool (so to speak) I don't see them as totally seperate to the
> > mind and a person's surreal foundations. I also don't see drugs as
> > manipulating the mind -- I see them as an extension and exploration.
> >
> > >
> Yes I agree with this. I have seen drunken bikers on LSD acting precisely
> like - well - drunken bikers. For the most part I have discovered the
> effects of drugs to be highly contextualized and (strangely enough
perhaps)
> neutral in their impact. Most of the benefits and/or drawbacks are more
the
> result of expectations and limitations and environmental "opportunity"
(not
> to speak of legal ramifications). There is little doubt - in my mind -
that
> LSD was an aid in breaking down crippling suppositions precisely when I
was
> feeling the need to do that. Then after a short time the drug became
> superfluous to that process, and turned into mere entertainment: which I
> don't denigrate!
>
> There are those people who become enthralled by a drug for various
reasons,
> although this seems to occur to those most desperately seeking too much in
> the experience, who have no limits to their neediness, and who are lacking
> in imagniative resources.
>
> But - if we can agree that our brains act as a sort of "filter" for raw
> reality, then what we experience on a drug isn't necessarily a distortion,
> but a different spectrum. This can be helpful or harmful.
Exactly! I was thinking of bringing up alcohol as an example. Basically it
comes down to the individual. I've seen people totally broken down by
heroin and who would do anything to get it, and did. Life reveoled around
it -- I also know people who have used over years and years -- just like
having a cigar (not that I've ever had one of those) or coffee. This whole
"alienation" that comes into discussing drugs and this whole "removal
process" from the individual only acts to frustrate me. IF we believe that
drugs are there primarily as a "manipulator" then there is always a
scapegoat, a way out, a lack of recognition for our actions regading the
"induced" state. I just don't see it that way -- it reeks of sterility and
just further pushes the reasoning that people who take part in drugs have
"no control".
For me, nowadays, things have slowed down considerably with all of what I
experienced in the past (regarding drugs). Mostly for lack of funds I'd
imagine.
However, I have tried pretty much most of it, and for an extended period of
time (on a regular basis). This whole idea that one instantly becomes
addicted (although nothing to do with surrealism as such in this
conversation) is ignorant and be-littling of people's diversity, and
relationship to drugs...
ohhh, I've been going on, I'll stop now!
Kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
john adams
>
> > It is this total manipulation you find incorrect, correctly, but not one
> > ever painted that picture in the discussion. So, i still maintain that
> > it does manipulate perception and thinking - but of course does not
> > completely control it - this would be very odd indeed, though.
>
> I think we are using different notions of the word "manipulation" here. Even
> eating a poptart is a manipulation of your senses and emotions. I don't
> think anyone would say drugs don't work on your perceptions: why take them
> alterations are within their expectations and desires, and not a
> course - most of the "benefits" evaporate in a desperate desire to regain
> normalcy, which slips away under the misuse and overdose. It is this
> epicycle which is best avoided.
> >
> > I read through part of the site you provided, Brandon. I came to the
> > conclusion that taking natema deep within the ecuadorian forest and
> > seeing those huge snakes and demons would be quite a wild and exciting
> > trip! Everyone should probably try it once...
> >
> I'll go: you pack the sandwiches and buy the airplane tickets...
>
> DMH
Im afraid i won't be falling for that old trick, senor DMH. I'll just
try to find out how to get from point A to point B on my own.
john
Aeon
>Brandon points out that would be antipodal to real freedom. And since
>Kristina brought up heroin, i chose to address other drugs as well - yes
>highly addictive - although i have never tried it. Have tried LSD, but
>only once.
>
>john
Ahh... sorry, I see your point now.
Fascinan
>Yes, this is what I was saying also -- in essence.
>Thanks Dale.
>
>Kristina
ughh.
Dale Houstman
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000228162954...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
Interesting huh Kristina: this Fascinan - who is so often either a "good
German" or an outright sycophant when it comes to the power games played by
Andrea and her second-best tool Nik, somehow finds agreement between two
people to be an egregious act.
Simply stupifying!
DMH
elag
>
> DMH:
>
> >Interesting huh Kristina: this Fascinan - who is so often either a "good
> >German" or an outright sycophant when it comes to the power games played by
> >Andrea and her second-best tool Nik, somehow finds agreement between two
> >people to be an egregious act.
>
> >Simply stupifying!
>
> disagreements with the both of you. The ambiguity is appropriate for my
> current state of mind -- hot and cold, but nothing in between. Too much TV and
> inactivity reflects poor usage of my mental capacities, like a dictionary in a
> stupid family. Bare bones now -- all that is left is some creative plasma,
> squirting about haphazardly.
>
> I recant my inconsistencies.
>
> Fas (not to be associated with any particular teutonic philosophies or
> political agendas)
Ich hasse Montage!
Brandon J. Freels
> LSD allows the mind to dream while in a waking state.... and therefore one
> might argue that it opens the door to the subconcious.
I'm not so sure about LSD allowing the mind to "dream." But I think you've
made a key statement here: LSD "allows" the mind to ... ? This is what I
mean when I say drugs only alter the mind, but don't free it. Drugs become
an authority over what you mind is "allowed" to do.
> Also, the drug doesn't really dictate the mind. It adds chemicals that
aren't
> normally there, that certainly affect our perceptions, but the things that
you
> perceive while on a "trip" come from your own mind.
I have always envision Surrealism as a way of seeing the world through our
savage eyes, and therefore seeing the world in a natural way. I almost see
Surrealism and Georges Bataille's theory of "Base Materialism" as one in the
same. Adding *chemicals* that aren't naturally there is what I see much of
culture doing with its bullshit [i.e. rules, morals, divisions]: adding
*factors* that aren't naturally there.
kristina
>
> "john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:38B9C6D7...@aol.com...
>
>
> > It is this total manipulation you find incorrect, correctly, but not one
> > ever painted that picture in the discussion. So, i still maintain that
> > it does manipulate perception and thinking - but of course does not
> > completely control it - this would be very odd indeed, though.
>
> I think we are using different notions of the word "manipulation" here.
Even
> eating a poptart is a manipulation of your senses and emotions. I don't
> think anyone would say drugs don't work on your perceptions: why take them
> if they don't? But I think - for the vast majority of users - these
> alterations are within their expectations and desires, and not a
> manipulation in a power sense. When a person does become addicted - of
> course - most of the "benefits" evaporate in a desperate desire to regain
> normalcy, which slips away under the misuse and overdose. It is this
> epicycle which is best avoided.
Yes, this is what I was saying also -- in essence.
Thanks Dale.
Kristina.
Fascinan
Aeon
Surrealism is not only freedom of the mind. It is also an exploration
of the subconcious.
LSD allows the mind to dream while in a waking state.... and therefore one
might argue that it opens the door to the subconcious.
It would seem that many did not find it to be this way though...
Also, the drug doesn't really dictate the mind. It adds chemicals that aren't
normally there, that certainly affect our perceptions, but the things that you
perceive while on a "trip" come from your own mind.
Just as your dreams are part of your mind.. yet most of the time, we do not
control them.
Aeon
>like art, may or may not be an instrumentation of surrealism (Michaux'
>marvelous experiments with mescaline, Artaud's South American experiences),
>but that neither constitutes surrealism per se, and that surrealism exists
>quite handily without either. This goes without saying, even though I said
>it!
>
>DMH
I would agree that these altered states do not constitute surrealism on
their own, and that surrealism exists without them altogether.
And now we've both said it.
john adams
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote
> > > It is this total manipulation you find incorrect, correctly, but not one
> > > ever painted that picture in the discussion. So, i still maintain that
> > > it does manipulate perception and thinking - but of course does not
> > > completely control it - this would be very odd indeed, though.
> >
> > I think we are using different notions of the word "manipulation" here.
> Even
> > eating a poptart is a manipulation of your senses and emotions. I don't
> > think anyone would say drugs don't work on your perceptions: why take them
> > if they don't? But I think - for the vast majority of users - these
> > alterations are within their expectations and desires, and not a
> > manipulation in a power sense. When a person does become addicted - of
> > course - most of the "benefits" evaporate in a desperate desire to regain
> > normalcy, which slips away under the misuse and overdose. It is this
> > epicycle which is best avoided.
>
> Yes, this is what I was saying also -- in essence.
> Thanks Dale.
>
> Kristina.
For the record, i wasn't trying to pass any form of judgement earlier.
And the word junkie came to me (quickly) as a way to describe those
heavily addicted to and the pitfalls/ill-effects accompanying such
instances and their withdrawal phases with certain drugs. Aside from the
usual drugs like alcohol, ibuprofen, nicotine i might consider others if
they were cleaner, less toxic, and more directly suited to accomplishing
their intended purpose. For now I'll just save the ol' money and
continue to look to other methods.
> >
> > >
> > > I read through part of the site you provided, Brandon. I came to the
> > > conclusion that taking natema deep within the ecuadorian forest and
> > > seeing those huge snakes and demons would be quite a wild and exciting
> > > trip! Everyone should probably try it once...
> > >
> > I'll go: you pack the sandwiches and buy the airplane tickets...
> >
> > DMH
> >
> >
The invitation still stands open on this one. Im projecting into about
May, or so.
john
Leo Sgouros
I miss alot.
Are you funding a filed *trip* to Ecuador?
Count me in for that.
john adams
> >
> > The invitation still stands open on this one. Im projecting into about
> > May, or so.
> >
> >
> > john
>
> I miss alot.
> Are you funding a filed *trip* to Ecuador?
> Count me in for that.
Yes, apparently i'm supplying the food and the fare this time (i plan on
sticking a poisonous worm in dale's sandwhich). We'll need other
contributions though, like gauze and canteens. That cool?
john
Leo Sgouros
gotcha
I'll also test the water to make sure it isnt holy
kristina
>
> "Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000228162954...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> > Kristina:
> >
> > >Thanks Dale.
> > >
> > >Kristina
> >
>
> Interesting huh Kristina: this Fascinan - who is so often either a "good
> German" or an outright sycophant when it comes to the power games played
by
> Andrea and her second-best tool Nik, somehow finds agreement between two
> people to be an egregious act.
>
> Simply stupifying!
Yeah it is rather...
I'm just waiting for someone to come along and tell us to get a room! ha ha
ha.
Oh well...
Kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote
> For the record, i wasn't trying to pass any form of judgement earlier.
> And the word junkie came to me (quickly) as a way to describe those
> heavily addicted to and the pitfalls/ill-effects accompanying such
> instances and their withdrawal phases with certain drugs. Aside from the
> usual drugs like alcohol, ibuprofen, nicotine i might consider others if
> they were cleaner, less toxic, and more directly suited to accomplishing
> their intended purpose. For now I'll just save the ol' money and
> continue to look to other methods.
>
I'd never debate someone's decision NOT to do drugs, especially as the
hesitance itself is enough reason to avoid it. The thing about a drug like
ibuprofen is - considering its legal face - how toxic it is. This drug can
rather easily damage your liver. LSD and marijuana are both less toxic by
far that all the legals drugs mentioned. It's an odd world, the world of
arbitrary oppression.
DMH
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38BB5812...@aol.com...
>
> > >
> > > The invitation still stands open on this one. Im projecting into about
> > > May, or so.
> > >
> > >
> > > john
> >
> > I miss alot.
> > Are you funding a filed *trip* to Ecuador?
> > Count me in for that.
>
> Yes, apparently i'm supplying the food and the fare this time (i plan on
> sticking a poisonous worm in dale's sandwhich). We'll need other
> contributions though, like gauze and canteens. That cool?
>
It's shaping up neatly isn't is?
DMH
Dale Houstman
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> I recant my inconsistencies.
Do no such thing! Revel in your inconsistencies! Point them out to
friends and neighbours.
"I wish not to eat so much sugar, as my teeth hurt, but I put two heaping
spoonfuls of sugar in my morning tea. I cannot drink it any other way. I
long to paint, but spent all day writing. I went into the bathroom to
take a shower, but instead made faces at myself in the mirror. I claim to
be an intelligent, social creature, yet I spent the weekend watching rerun
after rerun of COPS. My inconsistencies define me!
"I treat my girlfriend poorly because I love her. I remain distant from
my mother because she is important to me. I, human paradox! I, knot of
lies and misdirection and platitudes! I am king of my domaine, but dress
like a beggar. Though the walls of my basement are lined with expensive
wines, I drink Mr. Clean straight from the bottle."
Etc.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Brandon J. Freels
Dale Houstman wrote
Parry
> At first they
> truly were an incredible experience. With time, I felt the same as you
> mention above.
>
> Yet, did those early experiences result in anything beneficial to
> you and did it affect your particular approach to surrealism?
Possibly. As I said, the experiences confirmed materialism, and
demonstrated (by comparison with other experiences) that the imagination
is more powerful and flexible without drugs. But I say “possibly”
because these are things I would probably have come to anyway. From the
perspective of time, I would say drug experiences are insignificant when
placed alongside mental states I experienced when very young and
throughout my life.
> Does surrealism seek to expand reality? Is a drug experience truly an
> escape from "reality?"
>
> I feel that a drug experience is part of reality.
The surrealist escapade was to make desire known and realizable, to
unearth what is repressed and suppressed, to seek out the new and exalt
modernity, to solve the pains of the human condition. And reality has
certainly been expanded since the 1920’s, when surrealism, psychology,
quantum mechanics, humanism, labour organization and so forth were not a
part of many people’s reality. Drug experiences -- even the most fun and
colourful -- are of puny consequence. I referred to them as an “escape”
because they essentially put the user in a passive role, making him a
spectator of the drug’s effects.
> Yes. I came to the realization that my very personality was simply a
> combination of chemicals in my brain that could be altered and rearranged
> at times...
>
> I realized that conciousness itself is simply the result of chemical
> reactions in the brain.
You’ve described my own experience better than I described it myself.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
john adams
Yes, good points, i suppose ibuprofen could be rather toxic along with
all the other drug products tossed our way, properly controlled, sold,
and taxed of course. Marijuana's long term effects i'm simply not clear
on, though there is the fairly popular notion of declination occuring in
memory and cognition. Otherwise it seems fairly harmless. LSD long term
effects seem to me to be unclear altogether with the public, and
science, but behvioral changes, perception, and the ever popular
flashbacks seem possibly attributable to it. Maybe that's why i've
steered clear since the teen years-just to play it safe. To me, it seems
a potentially hairy ordeal, messing around with neurotransmitters and
the like in the dark. Smart drugs like piracetam sound intriguing enough
to give a whirl (for memory and cognitive enhancement), and is as far as
i know considered harmless. Perhaps that is why it's not available in
the U.S. though!
john
Aeon
>all the other drug products tossed our way, properly controlled, sold,
>and taxed of course. Marijuana's long term effects i'm simply not clear
>on, though there is the fairly popular notion of declination occuring in
>memory and cognition. Otherwise it seems fairly harmless. LSD long term
>effects seem to me to be unclear altogether with the public, and
>science, but behvioral changes, perception, and the ever popular
>flashbacks seem possibly attributable to it. Maybe that's why i've
Flashbacks are actually attributed to a condition known as
Traumatic Stress Syndrome, where you experience anxiety, panic attacks,
or re-live moments from your past due to the extreme trauma of the
situation.
Now certainly, this doesn't make flashbacks any more appealing, or
safe. heh.
I've done some reading on marijuanna, and there seem to be no long
term lasting effects. Any effects on memory and cognition seem to fade
a few months after discontinuation of the drug. Indeed, rather harmless.
>steered clear since the teen years-just to play it safe. To me, it seems
>a potentially hairy ordeal, messing around with neurotransmitters and
>the like in the dark. Smart drugs like piracetam sound intriguing enough
>to give a whirl (for memory and cognitive enhancement), and is as far as
>i know considered harmless. Perhaps that is why it's not available in
>the U.S. though!
I can understand why you would steer clear of LSD and any other heavy
drug for that matter. (or even any drugs period)
I think the issue I have with drugs, is who is the government to tell me
that I cannot waste my life being addicted to something? They will let
a person have alcohol (definately worse than marijuanna), cigarettes
(more lethal than many choice street drugs in my opinion), and caffiene.
They allow herbs to be sold over the counter without any previous
testing, and without any obligation on the manufacturer's part to tell
the truth about what is actually contained in the pills.
Honestly, why shouldn't someone be able to obtain any drug they like
and possibly kill themselves trying it? They should make information
available so that educating oneself about the dangers is possible,
instead of forcing us to explore these forbidden secrets in the dark.
Arg... sorry, I'm ranting now aren't I?
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote
>Marijuana's long term effects i'm simply not clear on, though there is the
fairly >popular notion of declination occuring in memory and cognition.
All all that effect appears to me to be a short-term one, although I am not
one to deny that taking a drug on a regular basis has NO discernible impact
on your physicality. But who knows what the terrible nexus of
caffeine-aspirin-air and water borne mercury-ibuprofen-fluoride-etc is doing
to us all anyway? And from what I've noticed life provides plenty of
opportunity for declination as a sort of habitual process. Maybe the most
dangerous thing in the world is taking that ride through Disney's "It's a
Small World After All" every few years?
>Otherwise it seems fairly harmless. LSD long term
> effects seem to me to be unclear altogether with the public, and
> science, but behvioral changes, perception, and the ever popular
> flashbacks seem possibly attributable to it.
I personally don't believe much of that. Unless and until they can provide a
neurological tracking map of LSD's permanent effects, I'll tend to believe
it is relatively harmless. The thing about it - of course - is that most
people tend to do it infrequently. It's relatively intense. Such
"self-limiting" intoxications (as opposed I guess to heroin and cocaine)
have that built-in failsafe. Then again - I've known bikers who did it
almost every day of their existence (as long as I knew them). I though that
was "rugged." But none of these conjectures have any scientific weight.
>Maybe that's why i've steered clear since the teen years-just to play it
safe. To >me, it seems a potentially hairy ordeal, messing around with
neurotransmitters >and the like in the dark.
Certainly, and - as I've said - since drugs tend to be strongly influenced
by the context in which they are administered - this very hesistance is
reason enough to hesitate!
>Smart drugs like piracetam sound intriguing enough to give a whirl (for
memory >and cognitive enhancement), and is as far as i know considered
harmless. >Perhaps that is why it's not available in the U.S. though!
I've taken such things and never found them useful. But maybe that's due to
all the marijuana and LSD I've tried?! See - the situation is hard to
figure.
If it's legal, something must be wrong with it.
DMH
Dale Houstman
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8bmpr...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
>
> Flashbacks are actually attributed to a condition known as
> Traumatic Stress Syndrome, where you experience anxiety, panic attacks,
> or re-live moments from your past due to the extreme trauma of the
> situation.
This is my experience: I've only known two persons who claim to have had
flashbacks. Both were what I would describe as "hysterical" personalities,
with rather "willlowy" psychologies.
>
>
>
> I think the issue I have with drugs, is who is the government to tell me
> that I cannot waste my life being addicted to something? They will let
> a person have alcohol (definately worse than marijuanna), cigarettes
> (more lethal than many choice street drugs in my opinion), and caffiene.
> They allow herbs to be sold over the counter without any previous
> testing, and without any obligation on the manufacturer's part to tell
> the truth about what is actually contained in the pills.
Oversight in MOST areas has grown thin in the last couple of decades. The
only problem with that is that - in the personal ethics arena - the cracking
down continues unabated. If the government is going to take my money, let
corporate entities piss in my food supply, and let monkeys purchase ray
guns, then the least they can do is stop peeking through my windows. But -
it continues. Under Clinton (our little liberal) legal rights have been
crushed, using all sorts of excuses. In the wake of the Oklahoma bombing a
whole slew of wiretapping and privacy laws were felled. And - in the area of
police powers - is it far off when any officer can give you an anal probe
simply because they don't like your haircut?
> Honestly, why shouldn't someone be able to obtain any drug they like
> and possibly kill themselves trying it? They should make information
> available so that educating oneself about the dangers is possible,
> instead of forcing us to explore these forbidden secrets in the dark.
>
This is all true. The excuse used for these intrusive laws is usually the
same (although really it is a cover for moralistic clampdowns): that such
damage costs the taxpayer. This is ludicrous of course. ANY activity on the
part of a human being has the potential of costing public money. We're in
the midst of a Calvinist uprising it seems most days.
DMH
Aeon
>flashbacks. Both were what I would describe as "hysterical" personalities,
>with rather "willlowy" psychologies.
Definately. I've had one or two half-assed flashbacks of my own, but
they certainly weren't visual... they were more like panic attacks that
produced a strange eerie feeling that was similar to what I felt on LSD.
>Oversight in MOST areas has grown thin in the last couple of decades. The
>only problem with that is that - in the personal ethics arena - the cracking
>down continues unabated. If the government is going to take my money, let
>corporate entities piss in my food supply, and let monkeys purchase ray
>guns, then the least they can do is stop peeking through my windows. But -
>it continues. Under Clinton (our little liberal) legal rights have been
>crushed, using all sorts of excuses. In the wake of the Oklahoma bombing a
>whole slew of wiretapping and privacy laws were felled. And - in the area of
>police powers - is it far off when any officer can give you an anal probe
>simply because they don't like your haircut?
GACK!
Where I feel we are going to see a large amount of activity will be in
the "internet" arena... where there are going to be huge claims about
security matters, protecting us for our own good, and so on and so forth.
I imagine the access and freedom of speech that we have today is a
treat.
>> Honestly, why shouldn't someone be able to obtain any drug they like
>> and possibly kill themselves trying it? They should make information
>> available so that educating oneself about the dangers is possible,
>> instead of forcing us to explore these forbidden secrets in the dark.
>>
>This is all true. The excuse used for these intrusive laws is usually the
>same (although really it is a cover for moralistic clampdowns): that such
>damage costs the taxpayer. This is ludicrous of course. ANY activity on the
>part of a human being has the potential of costing public money. We're in
>the midst of a Calvinist uprising it seems most days.
Exactly, and doesn't the drug user normally (arguable) pay taxes? I imagine
at some point in their lives they did. Considering food and other
neccessities are taxed... everyone pays into that system.
Aeon
>neurological tracking map of LSD's permanent effects, I'll tend to believe
>it is relatively harmless. The thing about it - of course - is that most
>people tend to do it infrequently. It's relatively intense. Such
>"self-limiting" intoxications (as opposed I guess to heroin and cocaine)
>have that built-in failsafe. Then again - I've known bikers who did it
>almost every day of their existence (as long as I knew them). I though that
>was "rugged." But none of these conjectures have any scientific weight.
I believe there have been a few studies that have pointed in the direction
of LSD causing some types of "damage" in the mental arena. Most often,
this proves to be people with a history of mental problems in the first
place though.
Leo Sgouros
in high doses(ignoring the damage in losing your senses and thinking you can
fly)-
However with the later versions with added "cuts" of various kinds, I dont
think this is the case any more.
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:Rw7v4.2676$%A3.6...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> "john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote
>
>
> >Marijuana's long term effects i'm simply not clear on, though there is
the
> fairly >popular notion of declination occuring in memory and cognition.
>
> All all that effect appears to me to be a short-term one, although I am
not
> one to deny that taking a drug on a regular basis has NO discernible
impact
> on your physicality. But who knows what the terrible nexus of
> caffeine-aspirin-air and water borne mercury-ibuprofen-fluoride-etc is
doing
> to us all anyway? And from what I've noticed life provides plenty of
> opportunity for declination as a sort of habitual process. Maybe the most
> dangerous thing in the world is taking that ride through Disney's "It's a
> Small World After All" every few years?
>
>
> >Otherwise it seems fairly harmless. LSD long term
> > effects seem to me to be unclear altogether with the public, and
> > science, but behvioral changes, perception, and the ever popular
> > flashbacks seem possibly attributable to it.
>
> I personally don't believe much of that. Unless and until they can provide
a
> neurological tracking map of LSD's permanent effects, I'll tend to believe
> it is relatively harmless. The thing about it - of course - is that most
> people tend to do it infrequently. It's relatively intense. Such
> "self-limiting" intoxications (as opposed I guess to heroin and cocaine)
> have that built-in failsafe. Then again - I've known bikers who did it
> almost every day of their existence (as long as I knew them). I though
that
> was "rugged." But none of these conjectures have any scientific weight.
>
Leo Sgouros
>
> Where I feel we are going to see a large amount of activity will be in
> the "internet" arena... where there are going to be huge claims about
> security matters, protecting us for our own good, and so on and so forth.
> I imagine the access and freedom of speech that we have today is a
> treat.
>
Care to expand on this?
I happen to agree, BTW.
john adams
>
> I've taken such things and never found them useful. But maybe that's due to
> all the marijuana and LSD I've tried?! See - the situation is hard to
> figure.
>
> If it's legal, something must be wrong with it.
>
> DMH
Hmmm, that could be, ya never know. I've read some here and there about
the case for these so-called smart drugs, most of which are not
available here, save through overseas mail order that is. They SOUND
rather appealing anyway, such as with piracetam for instance: increase
in flow of infortmation between hemispheres within the brain (the flow
being associated with creativity in humans), regenerative effect upon
nervous system (including receptors in the brain), a treatment for
dyslexia, and supposedly a memory and "intelligence" booster - all this
with no side effects. It sounds a bit too good to be true, though still
perhaps worth looking into. Which ones did you try and was it a
nootropic?
john
Aeon
naw, I'm just spouting off.
Actually... I really see the internet as something that grew exponentially,
and suddenly we have new legal issues to deal with. Freedom of speech
exists like it never did before. The internet is like the printing press
was... now more people can publish their thoughts, their opinions, their
everything.
Copyright laws are being stretched to the limit... free speech is a hot
issue, where before I think some people were sure it was a dead issue.
Harassment, stalking, and abuse have taken on new meaning. Discovery
that there is more than one "true love" out there waiting for you has
suddenly become a new fad. (I'm still amazed some people didn't realize
this) Crimes of a new sort are being committed.
And like always, the gov't will be quick to rush in and try to sort things
out, lay down rules and laws, set up governing bodies, and start to stake
out the territory. It didn't take advertising/capitalism to catch on to
the internet... the gov't is a little slow in comparison.
Aeon
>the case for these so-called smart drugs, most of which are not
>available here, save through overseas mail order that is. They SOUND
>rather appealing anyway, such as with piracetam for instance: increase
>in flow of infortmation between hemispheres within the brain (the flow
>being associated with creativity in humans), regenerative effect upon
>nervous system (including receptors in the brain), a treatment for
>dyslexia, and supposedly a memory and "intelligence" booster - all this
>with no side effects. It sounds a bit too good to be true, though still
>perhaps worth looking into. Which ones did you try and was it a
>nootropic?
>
>john
Any drug that boasts no side effects raises my suspicions. Even tylenol
has side effects. I think it just means that they haven't done enough
testing.
I'm not suprised by their claims on what it can do. I've seen what
other drugs can do. Unfortunately, if it does come here, it will either
be made illegal (if and when someone dies while they happen to be on it)
or they will make it hard to get even through doctors.
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > I've taken such things and never found them useful. But maybe that's due
to
> > all the marijuana and LSD I've tried?! See - the situation is hard to
> > figure.
> >
> > If it's legal, something must be wrong with it.
> >
> > DMH
>
> the case for these so-called smart drugs, most of which are not
> available here, save through overseas mail order that is. They SOUND
> rather appealing anyway, such as with piracetam for instance: increase
> in flow of infortmation between hemispheres within the brain (the flow
> being associated with creativity in humans), regenerative effect upon
> nervous system (including receptors in the brain), a treatment for
> dyslexia, and supposedly a memory and "intelligence" booster - all this
> with no side effects. It sounds a bit too good to be true, though still
> perhaps worth looking into. Which ones did you try and was it a
> nootropic?
>
experimental time: I can't recall (bring out the ginko biloba!). Anyway -
the thing in my case is that I rather like the fuzzy hypnogogic (sp?) state,
and tended always towards soporifics. This clarity notion isn't particularly
seductive to me, and in fact appears to be the perfect outgrowth of our
"24/7" lifestyles (well - not mine personally; I'm more a 15/4!); it's like
people want to turn into their own Palm Pilots.
DMH
Parry
[snippage]
> And like always, the gov't will be quick to rush in and try to sort things
> out, lay down rules and laws, set up governing bodies, and start to stake
> out the territory. It didn't take advertising/capitalism to catch on to
> the internet... the gov't is a little slow in comparison.
I wouldn’t say slow in comparison because there’s little to compare --
the government and the private sector generally work in tandem. For
instance, the US government is now spending great (public) resources to
pave and secure the road for e-commerce’s (private) profits. And the
internet itself was, of course, developed by the government, then later
made public for the benefit of commerce. The fate of the internet may
have its precedent in radio and television, which began with the promise
of being a free and open forum of ideas, and now have their content
almost entirely owned and controlled by corporations. Such controls may
be harder to implement on the internet, so the question is still open.
john adams
> >
> Oh Nik's handpuppet god knows!
Come again?
It was a very unfettered and unfocused
> experimental time: I can't recall (bring out the ginko biloba!). Anyway -
> the thing in my case is that I rather like the fuzzy hypnogogic (sp?) state,
> and tended always towards soporifics. This clarity notion isn't particularly
> seductive to me, and in fact appears to be the perfect outgrowth of our
> "24/7" lifestyles (well - not mine personally; I'm more a 15/4!); it's like
> people want to turn into their own Palm Pilots.
>
> DMH
That's certainly fine - i like the fuzzy warm tone of a vibrolux just as
much as the sound of flossing my teeth with metal string. The clarity
appeals to me i suppose because part of my attempt would probably be to
subvert those unattentive sessions of the mind and fussy obstacles to
the 'unconscious', or what have you. I've heard for instance sleep
deprivation can be one detour around the conscious preoccupation. Well,
that is NOT the case with me - i must be completely wet-wired the
opposite - i typically become zombie-like yet awake with little means of
summoning deeper creative levels normally accessible. I shoudl read up
on those effects of sleep starving. And actually i sort of cycle in and
out of mental states, so maybe there is more at work here. Maybe it's
all of the years abusing the drug of greasy fast food finally taking
it's toll.
john
Leo Sgouros
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:38BEF3...@zxOMITmail.com...
I can see several things happening.
One is the above, where newsgroups are actually owned by business related to
the subject.By then, there would be people paid to do commercials and skits
and the whole bit.
It could of course remain wild and uncensored, but I have this sinking
feeling that in order to accomodate the rest of the world that is going to
want to play, some type of literal internet cops will be enacted(maybe the
administrators, maybe all groups will be moderated) because of the fear of
an international incident.As the stakes get higher and people of importance
post more and more, someone discovered to have posted anything usable by an
enemy might be literally blackmailed.Or someone that is, um, "remote
viewed"(hee hee) and discovered to be sensitive to neuro-programming might
be moved to do something tragic in the real world.This total unreality may
turn totally real in weird ways(something I have learned from the big bad
trolls is that the real world doesnt exist here)
"Who cares" might suddenly turn to "who can I ruin".
Another random stray gaseous emmission on my mind is fighting wars on this
medium.The fighting groups(maybe made up of several countries with its
memebers scattered throughout) agree to some rules, observers are selected,
and through argument or whatever tactics are allowed the war is fought and
the loser pays somehow.I have commented on this before.
Personally I like it the way it is(but it *would* be nice to actually be a
paid internet writer-do they exist?)
Wow I am rambling.
neener neener
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > >
> > Oh Nik's handpuppet god knows!
>
> Come again?
No thank you, I'm spent.
>
> That's certainly fine - i like the fuzzy warm tone of a vibrolux just as
> much as the sound of flossing my teeth with metal string. The clarity
> appeals to me i suppose because part of my attempt would probably be to
> subvert those unattentive sessions of the mind and fussy obstacles to
> the 'unconscious', or what have you.
What I am most "turned off" by is efficiency and the endless demands for
clarity and reason. All those managers and sub-managers wired up on
reinforced orange juice, yogurt, and exercise regimens, always generating
"new ideas" for your work life, and constantly reinventing and refiling in
some Vitamin-E and Exomanilla-Y driven delusion of the Grand Unification
Office Theory. They appear to be thinking clearly, just about nothing in
particular. From what I have observed and read the really interesting things
in human history keep popping out of dreams, daydreams, accidents, the like.
It takes a certain "stae of mindfulness" already achieved and mastered, but
then the trigger is basically falling off the track.
>I've heard for instance sleep deprivation can be one detour around the
>conscious preoccupation. Well, that is NOT the case with me - i must be
>completely wet-wired the opposite - i typically become zombie-like yet
awake >with little means of summoning deeper creative levels normally
accessible. I >should read up on those effects of sleep starving. And
actually i sort of cycle in >and out of mental states, so maybe there is
more at work here. Maybe it's
> all of the years abusing the drug of greasy fast food finally taking
> it's toll.
I never found being forced to stay awake did much for me. I did it for three
days straight once and began hallucinating; but hallucinations are rather
too literal to be handled, it seems. No I like to start the sessions as wide
awake as possible. I used to like staying up at night, drinking caffeine,
whiskey and smoking pot with the television and the stereo on. Somehow (and
I was younger) this created the environment that I "needed." It was - to say
the least - an interesting year. My approach to the process is now is a very
diluted version of the same thing. But - even with that - one has to find a
path not taken, or discover holes to be filled in what you've created
already. All the disassociation in the world won't provide that if you can't
find it. If you're killing yourself flogging a dead horse, soon all you'll
have is a very-well flogged dead horse.
DMH
john adams
> > > Oh Nik's handpuppet god knows!
> >
> > Come again?
>
> No thank you, I'm spent.
Ok, i thought you might have been mistaken.
> >
> > That's certainly fine - i like the fuzzy warm tone of a vibrolux just as
> > much as the sound of flossing my teeth with metal string. The clarity
> > appeals to me i suppose because part of my attempt would probably be to
> > subvert those unattentive sessions of the mind and fussy obstacles to
> > the 'unconscious', or what have you.
>
> What I am most "turned off" by is efficiency and the endless demands for
> clarity and reason. All those managers and sub-managers wired up on
> reinforced orange juice, yogurt, and exercise regimens, always generating
> "new ideas" for your work life, and constantly reinventing and refiling in
> some Vitamin-E and Exomanilla-Y driven delusion of the Grand Unification
> Office Theory. They appear to be thinking clearly, just about nothing in
> particular. From what I have observed and read the really interesting things
> in human history keep popping out of dreams, daydreams, accidents, the like.
> It takes a certain "stae of mindfulness" already achieved and mastered, but
> then the trigger is basically falling off the track.
Well to be honest i never brought up the ginko and vitamin talk and
happen to agree with you about
the whole work culture in suits sloshing back yeast malts spinning
around on treadmills bit. Most of the usual fixes and enhancements one
might throw down more than likely aren't going to achieve much effect
(unless it fulfills a real physical condition), and i never considered
the idea it would add to their latent creativity. However consider this
(and this is a bit of shakey conjecture for the sake of it): What _if_
something enhances a person's perception? Would it also change their
imagination at all? Since these perceptions (which are never complete
ones of reality and vary from person to person in the first place) are
images and ideas we form OURSELVES of our enviroment? More fundamental
is the person's life slant, or shall we say desire that compels them to
certain creative thought, exploration, and expression through dream, in
the many senses of the word. Ultimately we won't find our creativity in
these or any other pill, though as you point out, and i wont disagree,
they are one doorway there. I'll re-emphasize my stance with logic by
the way- i was merely raising questions and discussion regarding a few
points, not trying to uphold or defend it within the thought process.
john
john adams
> > then the trigger is basically falling off the track.
>
> Well to be honest i never brought up the ginko and vitamin talk and
> happen to agree with you about
> the whole work culture in suits sloshing back yeast malts spinning
> around on treadmills bit. Most of the usual fixes and enhancements one
> might throw down more than likely aren't going to achieve much effect
> (unless it fulfills a real physical condition), and i never considered
> the idea it would add to their latent creativity. However consider this
> (and this is a bit of shakey conjecture for the sake of it): What _if_
> something enhances a person's perception? Would it also change their
> imagination at all? Since these perceptions (which are never complete
> ones of reality and vary from person to person in the first place) are
> images and ideas we form OURSELVES of our enviroment? More fundamental
> is the person's life slant, or shall we say desire that compels them to
> certain creative thought, exploration, and expression through dream, in
> the many senses of the word. Ultimately we won't find our creativity in
> these or any other pill, though as you point out, and i wont disagree,
> they are one doorway there. I'll re-emphasize my stance with logic by
> the way- i was merely raising questions and discussion regarding a few
> points, not trying to uphold or defend it within the thought process.
>
Now after posting those thoughts i'll have to admit that "enhancing
one's perception" might be an immodest proposal. FRankly, i'll have to
rethink that one out a little!
john
Dale Houstman
>However consider this (and this is a bit of shakey conjecture for the sake
of it): >What _if_ something enhances a person's perception?
In what way? I would say this has already happened to every human being who
has access to a telescope. Today with the Hubble, infra-red lenses, etc.
enhanced perception is ubiquitous.
> Would it also change >their imagination at all? Since these perceptions
(which >are never complete ones of reality and vary from person to person in
the first >place) are images and ideas we form OURSELVES of our enviroment?
Now one can dream of single-celled organisms and exploding galaxies on a
nightl basis: I would say such enhanced perceptions would add to the
"storehouse" of the imagination. The imaginative process itself remains very
much the same, I would suspect; it is always about seeking recombination.
All I am saying about the "smart drugs" is that my personal experience of
them was basically an empty one. They seemed to provide no content. This is
very possibly (although I joked about it) due to my use of other drugs at
various times. Just as the first marijuana experience is often empty of
anything but conjecture about a potential state (one has to learn how to be
stoned), this experience may escape me also. But - at 49 - I am not really
looking for a new drug experience at any rate. The idea behind these smart
drinks doesn't seduce me: clarity of thought BY ITSELF isn't intriguing to
me. My boss is - by all outward signs - a clear-thinking and structured
person whose great flood of ideas usually drown the boat. A little
derailment now and then wouldn't hurt.
But others are welcome to this mental efficiency. I'm not even certain it
exists as a drug result. My personal experience tells me not.
"Every time you think, you hurt the team."
some baseball manager said that...
DMH
john adams
>
> "Every time you think, you hurt the team."
> some baseball manager said that...
>
> DMH
Ah, good stuff!
As for perceptions, i suppose realizing our daily design (our make up)
of what we see or know is never going to be a complete representation
and always liable to restructuring or evaluation, and so this attitude
alone can prove to be more fluid and dynamic. I like it anyway...
john
Aeon
>of what we see or know is never going to be a complete representation
>and always liable to restructuring or evaluation, and so this attitude
>alone can prove to be more fluid and dynamic. I like it anyway...
>
>john
my brain just took a trip when I read "a complete representation",
and I pondered how I truly only have this teensy representation of
the universe in my head, and most of it is made up.