Do you ever have false epiphanies while high?

[MichaelVipperman]

The title of this thread namely, I find it misleading and it lead to me asking about your comprehension of said terms.

By mainly you mean "exclusively." Rather than asking about my comprehension of said terms, why not read what I actually said on the matter?

all of my comments are based on my thoughts after reading your article. i do not post in threads unless i've read/viewed all of the information contained, or expressed that i have not done so in my comment, for future reference.

Thank you.

Your comment on the first page, "a way of looking at something cannot be "false" to my knowledge" is something alluded to in my article and with which I agree.

The problem with "arguing semantics" is not that semantics is not a legitimate place for argument, but that the arguers usually insist on words having only a single meaning, rather than understanding them as contextually dynamic.

Those criticising the title of this thread are completely missing the point. The article is to seriously address a concern that some people have when they hear of drug-occasioned insights: how could you trust those insights? The question is inherently naive, but legitimate when coming from a naive perspective. It's a reasonable question for someone lacking good information to ask, and therefore a reasonable question for someone with good information to answer. The content of the article is intended to show what an increase in credulity might actually consist of, broadening the terms and hopefully doing something to remedy the naivety of the imagined (uninitiated) audience, while providing psychological insight and technique recommendations to someone coming at it with some starting knowledge.

In other words... I know the question is problematic. The point is to show why.

eta: perhaps a better choice of words would be "false insight" instead of "false epiphany" as is used in this thread, or "false belief" as used in the title of the actual article? It was originally conceptualised as a companion article to the Insight article from August. Like, one asks the question "how could you get insight from a drug?" and the other asks the question "aren't those insights likely to be false?" In each case I take the question seriously and, through discussion, introduce concepts that may be beneficial to somebody for whom these are legitimate questions.

http://michaelvipperman.wordpress.com/2 ... 4/insight/

 

[Sticki]

The title of this thread namely, I find it misleading and it lead to me asking about your comprehension of said terms.

By mainly you mean "exclusively." Rather than asking about my comprehension of said terms, why not read what I actually said on the matter?

You seriously think I didn't read any of it???
I read your thread title, I read your blog title and I read your blog entry and I replied on the basis of all 3 angles I could see you comming from.

Im not arguing semantics, Just trying to highlight that alot of people (probably alot of them vunerable) come through here and how many really need to start thinking about such things as "False Epiphanys" or really any other pseudo term?

Do you ever stop to think that some one some where may read something you wrote when you thought you knew something and you caused them harm by helping them condition their mind to believe something that you later knew to be completely false?

On that note I leave you with a saying,
"I see!" said the blind man to the deaf man....

 

[IJesusChrist]

The title of this thread namely, I find it misleading and it lead to me asking about your comprehension of said terms.

By mainly you mean "exclusively." Rather than asking about my comprehension of said terms, why not read what I actually said on the matter?

You seriously think I didn't read any of it???
I read your thread title, I read your blog title and I read your blog entry and I replied on the basis of all 3 angles I could see you comming from.

Im not arguing semantics, Just trying to highlight that alot of people (probably alot of them vunerable) come through here and how many really need to start thinking about such things as "False Epiphanys" or really any other pseudo term?

Do you ever stop to think that some one some where may read something you wrote when you thought you knew something and you caused them harm by helping them condition their mind to believe something that you later knew to be completely false?

On that note I leave you with a saying,
"I see!" said the blind man to the deaf man....

Sticki, no offense, but I don't see this as being constructive at all...

 

[Sticki]

So its not constructive to think about ones actions and repercussions?

I started out on a simillar path to every psychonaut, Everything is great and everything is one, lets talk about the stuff we think about and broadcast it to the world but as I have become older and more experienced. I have learnt alot of people cant take this kind of thinking and something so simple as a misunderstanding of words or terms can lead to a world of uncomprehensible out come for some individuals.

Once we write an article and place it on the internet, Do we no longer hold any accountability for it?

 

[ararat]

Do you ever stop to think that some one some where may read something you wrote when you thought you knew something and you caused them harm by helping them condition their mind to believe something that you later knew to be completely false

that is a good formula for paralysis, for how do you know whether what you say is "true" or "false"? of course, it'd be childish to argue in favor of something that you haven't thought about twice, but there's limits. also, the people who read stuff on here should be aware that what is being written mustn't necessarily be true, otherwise they'd end up in scientology or something, if they believed everything without thinking about it.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

A: "Could you come to wrong conclusions?"
B: "You shouldn't ask that, somebody could come to a wrong conclusion!"

Thank you, Sticki, for making this thread truly absurd. It has lovely isometry with the metaphysical bent of the article.

 

[BrainEater]

only because you have a pseudo-astrological avatar image and you have a website you think you are oh so important huh???
but it isn't so...
so stop trying to ridicule our fellow members to fit your ideology, perspective or whatnot. you can't mislead us..
we are real psychonauts, bitch!!! :unibrow:
fuck off with that kind of negativity...we don't need that shit. if you want us to help you, we will do that if you ask us nicely.
but stop blaming others for your own ignorance. that's the worst form of ignorance.

maybe i should call you "just another mr. words are oh so tangible" or so... go figure... :thumbsdown:


peace

 

[MichaelVipperman]

only because you have a pseudo-astrological avatar image and you have a website you think you are oh so important huh???
but it isn't so...
so stop trying to ridicule our fellow members to fit your ideology, perspective or whatnot. you can't mislead us..
we are real psychonauts, bitch!!! :unibrow:
fuck off with that kind of negativity...we don't need that shit. if you want us to help you, we will do that if you ask us nicely.
but stop blaming others for your own ignorance. that's the worst form of ignorance.

maybe i should call you "just another mr. words are oh so tangible" or so... go figure... :thumbsdown:


peace

Sorry, wasn't trying to be so negative (was I even? What comment of mine was more negative than "bitch... fuck off... we don't need that shit... your own ignorance... 's the worst form of ignorance"? Could you please quote the thing I said you found to be so negative and judgemental?). I merely expressed frustration with Sticki heavily criticising things I didn't say and don't agree with based on his interpretation of one possible meaning of a thread title, evidently without having actually read the article in which the topic was discussed. If somebody disagrees with something I've said, hey, awesome, let's debate it... but I'd prefer if a complaint actually pertained to a position I adopted, and consisted of arguments pertaining to the point being espoused, not merely rejecting that certain combinations of words should ever occur in any instance.

And I have given what I think is a cogent explanation, which nobody has responded to (the gist: questions to which the answer is "well, not really" are still worth asking). You and Sticki just jumped to attacking me, rather than responding to any of my points. I don't see that as helpful.

One other point: I think it's important for people to think critically about any "realisation" they have, whether they were sober or high when they had it, and especially good for them to understand that there are certain conditions in which they'll be more or less likely to accept something as true. There's something called Positive Asymmetry wherein we tend to always focus on the positive and ignore the negative... I'm suggesting we should look at both where appropriate. Whenever I look at anything even remotely negative, people jump on me for "negativity," rather than understanding those comments within a broader theoretical context that includes lots of positive comments as well. Not all realisations hold water, not all drug use is good, etc. It should be possible to say those things without this kind of a vehement reaction.

 

[BrainEater]

maybe you are not aware of the positions you are taking in the way / as much as you say you are. i agree that my reaction was possibly a bit too impulsive, but it felt and and still feels right. i am basically saying you act as if you are ultra sophisticated, but the academic use of words in my opinion to a certain extent just seems to disguise a general lack of real empathy or the ability for it.
it could be you project your mind too much, like i do for sure...because you are at least to some extent surely trapped in it. and in that context i want to warn you, because it can turn against you and all you have then is a fassade or so. don't get me wrong, i appreciate the verbally compromising answer you gave me. i think you have potential, but amongst other things my reaction to your content/comments should make you aware of the need to be careful with and rethink "some things".
so sorry that my answer was so harsh, but it was only so, because that kind of shit can do A LOT of damage (even to people that don't really got anything to do with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). therefore i suggest that you practice a little bit more empathy than mind-projection or the latter more with the emphasis on the former.
i hope i made myself a little bit more clear. don't get me wrong... i'm all about and for educating the people, too, regarding psychedelics, drugs and psychonautism in general. my point is, that you possibly should separate your own ideology a little bit more from the education that you want to provide. else it's just entertainment, that can and will mislead more people than it will help. take what i write with a pinch of salt and not personally and then you and we all possibly could benefit from it.
thanks for reading...


peace


edit: i did read the article and sticki read it too... just because we don't share your opinion/ideology fully we are the enemies lol... who is the ignorant really. lol.... but i don't even give a shit anymore ... it's just too kindergarden like... wtf!?
grow up kid and go cry to your mommy instead of creating ANOTHER USELESS EGO WAR YAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY LOL
and then denying that you created it... seriously.... how much more childish can it get????

 

[MichaelVipperman]

I'm taking this to PM

 

[BrainEater]

it seems like ego-mind projections are the most fucked up thing that exists. but maybe the topic still needs a little bit more investigation or reformulation kind of thing indeed?! anyway once more sorry for the possibly exagerated reaction, however it could be a simulation for reality in general, too... like how it could be received. well i guess i was also somewhat charged lol... but who says other people can't be charged as well... however we are more than batteries!!!!!!!!! :roll:

my suggestion for an alternative topic title would be: do you have the potential for deluding(/blinding?) yourself while high???
because as far as i understand, it has got to do with blindness indeed...


peace

 

[IJesusChrist]

Brain I don't think you are being constructive here either, you do realize that you are blasting him for not agreeing with (wait did he actually say anything in the article about his opinions?) what he has said, but then go ahead and say that he is condemning you for not agreeing with you.

Come on guys what the hell is going on.

Vipperman made a very interesting post. He brought up a very good topic for discussion, and instead of talking about the subject matter you have started blasting him over semantics about the meaning of an epiphany.

To me, it looks like you guys are trying to defend all of your epiphany - induced ideas as absolutely true, thinking that Vipperman has claimed some of them may be false.

Take a deep breath for god sake - these two threads are making me sick.

 

[BrainEater]

obviously the threads made me sick, too lol... but both sides somewhat... it's like i don't even want to have such a clear position anymore, because if it needs such a big word barrier, to appear as if you are thus explaining who you are or who you think are, what's the damn point?? maybe we should instead better be writing books or whatnot to each other... however because the topic is such a big matter of perspective, the concept of it can be abused very much and i guess that's what made me rant, because i had such bad experience with that kinda thing....


peace

 

[Sticki]

I do not see how you think I attacked you Mr.Vipperman and as for you IJC, Calling our epiphanies false has triggerd such a response.... :lol:

You two have alot to learn, I was merely pointing out that its easy to mislead with out even understanding you are doing it and when the damage is done there is NOTHING you can say or do becuase the damage is done.

I agree I have maybe invested too much interest in this and gone the long way around but as BrainEater says I have had bad experiences in this area too and I have previously posted one of the worst on here - post-39772.html?f=41

I never meant to make any one feel alienated or even angry, I just wanted to make you think a little about what you say and do.

 

[ararat]

brain, since you seem to place such high importance on providing education to others, let me point out to you that you seem to talk with your own reflections, not so much with actual other people. not exclusively, but to a big part.

[youtube]EoWKSxuU6WU[/youtube]

 

[ophiuchus]

But doesn't an epiphany feeling necessarily imply that some sort of idea is to come?

yes, but

In other words, will an epiphany not always be followed by an idea, or a perspective?

the order is, epiphany, perspective, then ideas/beliefs/misconceptions, etc. ideas/beliefs/misconceptions may only come forth through a perspective, so this is to imply that they are NOT one and the same (and nothing more). difference between chicken and egg, easier to distinguish and not so paramount. the difference here is more subtle, yet more extreme. so yes i think it required some special attention, and yes i do agree that anything beyond this point is irrelevant to that. and yes, if it were me i would change the topic title. i would use either the terms "misconception" or "false belief", as the use of "epiphany" (or insight*) creates a scenario like this...

Those criticising the title of this thread are completely missing the point.

if the title made sense, that is. if the title read what you or i suggested** after the fact then i would agree, but as is, it is critically flawed, which makes it the most immediate point to be addressed, even if it was not the intended one. sorry if i appear to be so critical, but it really does hamper the entire debate because some people are going to argue the title, which does not agree with the contents of the article, against other people arguing it's contents instead of (what was intended) non-psychedelic initiates debating with psychdelic initiates.

i see what you've done with the article itself and it brings up important points, in relation to "outsiders" to the world of psychedelics, but i think that to facilitate that point it would be of benefit to be as straightforward as possible. umm, this, for example: "..."false belief" as used in the title of the actual article..." is a good idea. if it were me, i would try to use only the same terms that were used in the article to avoid any confusion like this in the future.

** "false insight" however, is a term that shares the same ground as "false epiphany" in that it is a vector, a pathway, not a state. ideas/beliefs/etc etc are STATEments, whereas insight is once again, :shock:

 

[ophiuchus]

on a side note:

i believe that everyone is being constructive here. not agreeing, doesn't necessarily mean destructive or non-constructive. the situation is evolving and the points coming up are clearly what needs to be addressed, or else they wouldn't have come up, ya know?

we all have an opportunity to learn here.

:lol: "writing books to each other" :lol:

 

[IJesusChrist]

we all have an opportunity to learn here.

uke:

... just kid. I just don't like shooting ideas down because of disagreement. Especially since this is the first time this topic has been brought up, and by a semi-new member... it just seemed as if we were discouraging the entire post happened.

 

[ophiuchus]

well, like i said, i find it to be a very interesting article that does bring up some very important points, so im thankful that it is here, but i dont think the topic is going to bring the right "crowd" or mindset that was envisioned with it's current title.

repeating myself.. i will agree on this:

I just don't like shooting ideas down because of disagreement.

so long as it applies equally to everybody.

shifting gears...

has anybody encountered a scenario like this? that is, had a conversation with someone entirely unfamiliar to psychedelics, be it interested or not? i have, but im curious as to what was said, and the method that you guys might have used. was it effective? not? can we share?

 

[IJesusChrist]

New thread? Started by you?