5 ms·

"Crazy" here is just a euphemism for: Well out of the ordinary. Should it be surprising that the ordinary, the mundane, the average, the rock-no-boats, never ac

"Crazy" here is just a euphemism for: Well out of the ordinary. Should it be surprising that the ordinary, the mundane, the average, the rock-no-boats, never accomplish great things? Why would they? Those who're complacent about the world as it is - or worse, sneeringly nasty at anyone stepping beyond the status quo - have no ability to be a Henry Ford or a Nikola Tesla or an Elon Musk. Why would such minds be limited to just building a business? Of course they aren't ordinary.

napierzaza 4y ago
[dead]
mikrl 4y ago
I don’t think they mean ‘crazy’ in the mentally ill sense because nothing could be a bigger detriment to leadership than the irrational outbursts associated with manic episodes and the crushing inability to function associated with depressions. Although Elon Musk likes his LSD or so I’ve heard, and a ‘trip’ is basically a self induced euphoric psychosis which can be compared to a schizophrenic episode.
- LBJsPNS 4y ago
  Spoken like someone who has never dropped acid before. Schizophrenic episode indeed.
  - mikrl 4y ago
    Someone who isn’t me is well versed in small, stiff pieces of paper, but admittedly not schizophrenia. They claim there is a lack of voices talking to them, but the effects on their serotonin system does lead to a euphoric and psychotic state.
- sammalloy 4y ago
  > Although Elon Musk likes his LSD or so I’ve heard, and a ‘trip’ is basically a self induced euphoric psychosis which can be compared to a schizophrenic episode. You might want to revisit the literature. That idea, known as pychotomimetism, is an old one, and was disproved in the case of LSD many decades ago. However, you are not solely to blame as the mainstream drug literature continues to promote this error (much of it is bunk), and even the Wikipedia page on pychotomimetism continues to list LSD (without a source, of course). Although it’s been a while since I took a gander, I’m fairly certain that the leading researchers stopped treating LSD as a psychotomimetic in the late 1970s to early 1980s. The idea you are defending came out of the 1950s. A lot has changed in our understanding since that time. The more current paradigm for LSD borders on its therapeutic and entheogenic properties, which are admittedly difficult to categorize and verbalize beyond certain metaphors, analogies, and mythological symbols. As an atheist, it interests me, because when you take LSD, you realize that this experience is the root of religion. And if you’re someone who considers themselves religious and you’ve never had a psychedelic experience, well, you’re missing out on an opportunity to truly understand what religion is and what it’s all about, and how it works in the human mind. The experience itself goes far beyond that oddity, of course. In addition to that insight, you will also receive a new perspective on the arts, as every imaginable design, pattern, and image will appear during your trip. There are, of course, many other highlights one could discuss. For me, I’m convinced it helped me recover memories from my childhood, and some people will tell you it can lead to closure on things in your life by promoting acceptance and peace of mind. Obviously, it’s not for everyone, and should be used wisely and with caution, just like anything else.
  - qroolen 4y ago
    are you really sure you understand what religion is about by taking LSD-25? seriously, religion is so broad that claiming that you understand it and resume it on a simple feeling because you took a psychedelic, makes my stomach whirl... even after a sense deprived room psychodelic experience as well many other introspective trips in easier environments, as an atheist since children days
    - sammalloy 4y ago
      Not sure if it’s just me, but I can’t reply to your comment because it doesn’t seem to make any sense in English. Please revise or rewrite it if you want a reply. Apologies if English is your second language. Edit: I would encourage you to read up on religious archetypes. They are not as broad as you seem to suggest, and are quite limited in scope and shared by most religions. Interestingly, these archetypes are all found in the psychedelic experience, indicating to some researchers that ancient religious practices in the past may have once had a psychoactive ritual sacrament. Over time, these rituals were either lost or abandoned, and replaced with symbolic sacraments. There’s an enormous amount of literature on this, so it would be difficult to briefly summarize it here, but suffice it to say, the leading religious archetypes are all found in the LSD experience. In a nutshell, the entheogenic theory suggests that modern religious beliefs and practices come from and originate from these experiences. This doesn’t mean these ideas are real or that god is real or that the Buddha was right, or that Christ was literally resurrected—it means that religion arises out of some kind of strange interaction with psychoactive substances and human brains. Obviously, this is highly controversial and disputed, but it does have some evidence in history, in practices such as the soma in the Vedic religions of India and the use of the kykeon during the Eleusinian Mysteries in Greece, as only two notable examples. In more recent years, researchers have tried to link these substances to religions like Judaism, finding solid, demonstrable evidence of cannabis use (as a psychoactive incense, high doses of cannabis are classified on a spectrum in the psychedelic category) in ancient Israeli shrines, and in Christianity, noting the strange, out of place imagery of fungi in the 12th-century Plaincourault Chapel, as just one example, besides the claims of John M. Allegro, who has been widely dismissed for brazenly claiming, from his scholarly interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that Jesus was a metaphor for the mushroom itself, and was never intended to be taken literally as a real person. I can imagine how disturbing these ideas might be to sincere religious believers who are heavily emotionally invested in their archetypes as real, literal, living and breathing ideas, but the psychedelic experience shows us otherwise—it’s all in our mind.
croes 4y ago
>the ordinary, the mundane, the average, the rock-no-boats Most great things are accomplished by them, often by teams of them. They don't just run around and brag about their success. For instance Polio wasn't nearly eradicated by people like Musk, it where hard working ordinary people. BTW most of the things attributed to Musk are done by his employees, the ordinary guys who never accomplish great things /s
- mmsimanga 4y ago
  I think you are conflating things here. The gentleman who came up with the polio vaccine is the "crazy" person who decided not to accept the status quo. That polio should be literally a death sentence. I am not saying the hard working people who administered the vaccine should not be acknowledged, they should be but we cannot equate administering the vaccine to inventing the vaccine.
  - croes 4y ago
    It wasn't one gentleman but the result of multiple people. Solutions are seldom the result of one lonely working geniuses. For instance the internet or FB changed the world, but I wouldn't categorize their inventors as those crazy ones mentioned in the article. We just tend to attribute special features to the most well known people, higher endurance, greater skill, stronger will. There are way to many inventions and companies to thinks the world is formed by a few 'crazy' ones. The only crazy one who achieved that are the real crazy ones and they didn't change the world to the better, see Putin.
    - mmsimanga 4y ago
      I agree that most things aren't invented by one person. We stand on the shoulders of giants. I am okay with recognising all 20 or 100 people who contribute to an invention. Heck even the 1000 people. I am just having a hard time with notion that those administering the vaccine are the same as those who invented the vaccine. I use Linux promote Linux to those in my circles. I certainly do not view myself as an equal to Linus.

napierzaza 4y ago

[dead]

mikrl 4y ago

I don’t think they mean ‘crazy’ in the mentally ill sense because nothing could be a bigger detriment to leadership than the irrational outbursts associated with manic episodes and the crushing inability to function associated with depressions. Although Elon Musk likes his LSD or so I’ve heard, and a ‘trip’ is basically a self induced euphoric psychosis which can be compared to a schizophrenic episode.

LBJsPNS 4y ago
Spoken like someone who has never dropped acid before. Schizophrenic episode indeed.
- mikrl 4y ago
  Someone who isn’t me is well versed in small, stiff pieces of paper, but admittedly not schizophrenia. They claim there is a lack of voices talking to them, but the effects on their serotonin system does lead to a euphoric and psychotic state.
sammalloy 4y ago
> Although Elon Musk likes his LSD or so I’ve heard, and a ‘trip’ is basically a self induced euphoric psychosis which can be compared to a schizophrenic episode. You might want to revisit the literature. That idea, known as pychotomimetism, is an old one, and was disproved in the case of LSD many decades ago. However, you are not solely to blame as the mainstream drug literature continues to promote this error (much of it is bunk), and even the Wikipedia page on pychotomimetism continues to list LSD (without a source, of course). Although it’s been a while since I took a gander, I’m fairly certain that the leading researchers stopped treating LSD as a psychotomimetic in the late 1970s to early 1980s. The idea you are defending came out of the 1950s. A lot has changed in our understanding since that time. The more current paradigm for LSD borders on its therapeutic and entheogenic properties, which are admittedly difficult to categorize and verbalize beyond certain metaphors, analogies, and mythological symbols. As an atheist, it interests me, because when you take LSD, you realize that this experience is the root of religion. And if you’re someone who considers themselves religious and you’ve never had a psychedelic experience, well, you’re missing out on an opportunity to truly understand what religion is and what it’s all about, and how it works in the human mind. The experience itself goes far beyond that oddity, of course. In addition to that insight, you will also receive a new perspective on the arts, as every imaginable design, pattern, and image will appear during your trip. There are, of course, many other highlights one could discuss. For me, I’m convinced it helped me recover memories from my childhood, and some people will tell you it can lead to closure on things in your life by promoting acceptance and peace of mind. Obviously, it’s not for everyone, and should be used wisely and with caution, just like anything else.
- qroolen 4y ago
  are you really sure you understand what religion is about by taking LSD-25? seriously, religion is so broad that claiming that you understand it and resume it on a simple feeling because you took a psychedelic, makes my stomach whirl... even after a sense deprived room psychodelic experience as well many other introspective trips in easier environments, as an atheist since children days
  - sammalloy 4y ago
    Not sure if it’s just me, but I can’t reply to your comment because it doesn’t seem to make any sense in English. Please revise or rewrite it if you want a reply. Apologies if English is your second language. Edit: I would encourage you to read up on religious archetypes. They are not as broad as you seem to suggest, and are quite limited in scope and shared by most religions. Interestingly, these archetypes are all found in the psychedelic experience, indicating to some researchers that ancient religious practices in the past may have once had a psychoactive ritual sacrament. Over time, these rituals were either lost or abandoned, and replaced with symbolic sacraments. There’s an enormous amount of literature on this, so it would be difficult to briefly summarize it here, but suffice it to say, the leading religious archetypes are all found in the LSD experience. In a nutshell, the entheogenic theory suggests that modern religious beliefs and practices come from and originate from these experiences. This doesn’t mean these ideas are real or that god is real or that the Buddha was right, or that Christ was literally resurrected—it means that religion arises out of some kind of strange interaction with psychoactive substances and human brains. Obviously, this is highly controversial and disputed, but it does have some evidence in history, in practices such as the soma in the Vedic religions of India and the use of the kykeon during the Eleusinian Mysteries in Greece, as only two notable examples. In more recent years, researchers have tried to link these substances to religions like Judaism, finding solid, demonstrable evidence of cannabis use (as a psychoactive incense, high doses of cannabis are classified on a spectrum in the psychedelic category) in ancient Israeli shrines, and in Christianity, noting the strange, out of place imagery of fungi in the 12th-century Plaincourault Chapel, as just one example, besides the claims of John M. Allegro, who has been widely dismissed for brazenly claiming, from his scholarly interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that Jesus was a metaphor for the mushroom itself, and was never intended to be taken literally as a real person. I can imagine how disturbing these ideas might be to sincere religious believers who are heavily emotionally invested in their archetypes as real, literal, living and breathing ideas, but the psychedelic experience shows us otherwise—it’s all in our mind.

croes 4y ago

>the ordinary, the mundane, the average, the rock-no-boats Most great things are accomplished by them, often by teams of them. They don't just run around and brag about their success. For instance Polio wasn't nearly eradicated by people like Musk, it where hard working ordinary people. BTW most of the things attributed to Musk are done by his employees, the ordinary guys who never accomplish great things /s

mmsimanga 4y ago
I think you are conflating things here. The gentleman who came up with the polio vaccine is the "crazy" person who decided not to accept the status quo. That polio should be literally a death sentence. I am not saying the hard working people who administered the vaccine should not be acknowledged, they should be but we cannot equate administering the vaccine to inventing the vaccine.
- croes 4y ago
  It wasn't one gentleman but the result of multiple people. Solutions are seldom the result of one lonely working geniuses. For instance the internet or FB changed the world, but I wouldn't categorize their inventors as those crazy ones mentioned in the article. We just tend to attribute special features to the most well known people, higher endurance, greater skill, stronger will. There are way to many inventions and companies to thinks the world is formed by a few 'crazy' ones. The only crazy one who achieved that are the real crazy ones and they didn't change the world to the better, see Putin.
  - mmsimanga 4y ago
    I agree that most things aren't invented by one person. We stand on the shoulders of giants. I am okay with recognising all 20 or 100 people who contribute to an invention. Heck even the 1000 people. I am just having a hard time with notion that those administering the vaccine are the same as those who invented the vaccine. I use Linux promote Linux to those in my circles. I certainly do not view myself as an equal to Linus.