3 ms·

A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something sepa

A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. -- Albert Einstein There. No drugs, just reflection, same result. And there is something to be said about experiencing something you know intellectually to be true. And then there are people who don't come to such conclusions through thinking; I dare say even if it's "just" tripping your balls off, a lot of people could use such an experience. Maybe not this particular one though, that seems a bit heavy. Also, what is "impaired cognition"? Compared to what, exactly? I mean, what makes thinking you're person A with attributes X and Y and possessions Z not impaired cognition? They're both "just in your head", after all, and the view that "there is just everything" seems to be closer to what we know so far about reality, than our nonsense about individuals, nations and corporations. I mean, just because you call something a chair doesn't mean there is such thing; it's just practical and we don't think much of it, so we divided "whatever this is", into a trillion of such concepts, none of them able to withstand examination, but taking on a life on their own in our imaginations. They kind of become our masters, and I'm pretty sure letting go of all such delusions in one big go feels awesome, and a bit of "gobbledygook" is to be expected... just don't mistake nonsensical utterances with not understanding them.

jpdoctor 14y ago
> Also, what is "impaired cognition"? Compared to what, exactly? How about this for an operational definition: When you open your eyes and are seeing shit that isn't there, you're suffering from impaired cognition. It's really not that difficult, unless you want it to be. Edit: OK Fine. I give up: It's mysterious cosmic stuff that puts you in touch with the everlasting oneness of all humans and the universe. Good luck with the whole enlightenment thing, I'm sure the chemicals will fast-track you to exactly the right path.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  Again, don't mistake your simplicistic, non-scientific view of things with any desire on my end of "wanting" things to be "more [???] complicated than they are". Even just in "stuff that is there" are so many implied assumptions. Also, optical hallucinations don't enter into any of this.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Actually, there's an important (and under-appreciated) difference between visuals and hallucinations. Visuals are when you see patterns, fractals, etc. You don't need to use drugs to get that. Use the latest brainwave synch. technologies and aim for low-theta. Entirely safe, produces closed-eye visuals in the dark. You're lingering in a state similar to that which occurs before you go to sleep. It's interesting, but ultimately visuals are just artifacts. Hallucinations are when you actually believe what you're seeing is real. IMO that's undesirable and it can obviously be extremely dangerous (except in the dream state).
- militiaman21 14y ago
  You sound very pretentious. How can you claim to have the ultimate end-all definition of "shit that isn't there"? The mere fact that we are humans with extremely limited sensory perception should be enough to prove that "open your eyes" is not a good enough method to defining reality. I mean relax dude... that's just like... your... opinion, or whatever dude. :)
gnosis 14y ago
"There. No drugs, just reflection, same result." It's one thing to talk about oneness and accept it on an intellectual level, quite another thing to experience it. Houston Smith, one of the greatest religious scholars, had already had a whole career writing and talking about religion, but when he finally took a psychedelic he said that he finally got to experience what he was writing about. There have been studies that have shown that most people who take psychedelics in a therapeutic context consider their trips to be some of the most important experiences of their lives, some consider them to be the single most important experience in their life. These experiences are not equivalent to what you'd get from reading a bumper sticker or an Einstein quote. Most people who are condescending towards psychedelic experiences don't know what the hell they're talking about. They're like little kids laughing at the thought of having sex without ever having any.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  These experiences are not equivalent to what you'd get from reading a bumper sticker or an Einstein quote. Where did I say they are? When I said "same result" I was referring to Einstein (assuming the reader would get the point, not exactly equating that either), not to reading that quote.

jpdoctor 14y ago

> Also, what is "impaired cognition"? Compared to what, exactly? How about this for an operational definition: When you open your eyes and are seeing shit that isn't there, you're suffering from impaired cognition. It's really not that difficult, unless you want it to be. Edit: OK Fine. I give up: It's mysterious cosmic stuff that puts you in touch with the everlasting oneness of all humans and the universe. Good luck with the whole enlightenment thing, I'm sure the chemicals will fast-track you to exactly the right path.

PavlovsCat 14y ago
Again, don't mistake your simplicistic, non-scientific view of things with any desire on my end of "wanting" things to be "more [???] complicated than they are". Even just in "stuff that is there" are so many implied assumptions. Also, optical hallucinations don't enter into any of this.
michaelochurch 14y ago
Actually, there's an important (and under-appreciated) difference between visuals and hallucinations. Visuals are when you see patterns, fractals, etc. You don't need to use drugs to get that. Use the latest brainwave synch. technologies and aim for low-theta. Entirely safe, produces closed-eye visuals in the dark. You're lingering in a state similar to that which occurs before you go to sleep. It's interesting, but ultimately visuals are just artifacts. Hallucinations are when you actually believe what you're seeing is real. IMO that's undesirable and it can obviously be extremely dangerous (except in the dream state).
militiaman21 14y ago
You sound very pretentious. How can you claim to have the ultimate end-all definition of "shit that isn't there"? The mere fact that we are humans with extremely limited sensory perception should be enough to prove that "open your eyes" is not a good enough method to defining reality. I mean relax dude... that's just like... your... opinion, or whatever dude. :)

gnosis 14y ago

"There. No drugs, just reflection, same result." It's one thing to talk about oneness and accept it on an intellectual level, quite another thing to experience it. Houston Smith, one of the greatest religious scholars, had already had a whole career writing and talking about religion, but when he finally took a psychedelic he said that he finally got to experience what he was writing about. There have been studies that have shown that most people who take psychedelics in a therapeutic context consider their trips to be some of the most important experiences of their lives, some consider them to be the single most important experience in their life. These experiences are not equivalent to what you'd get from reading a bumper sticker or an Einstein quote. Most people who are condescending towards psychedelic experiences don't know what the hell they're talking about. They're like little kids laughing at the thought of having sex without ever having any.

PavlovsCat 14y ago
These experiences are not equivalent to what you'd get from reading a bumper sticker or an Einstein quote. Where did I say they are? When I said "same result" I was referring to Einstein (assuming the reader would get the point, not exactly equating that either), not to reading that quote.