maxfreakout a dit:
HeartCore a dit:
He (Jan) is a great fan of John Allegro's work
that's an understatement, he named his son 'John Marco' in honour of Allegro
Irvin makes the same fundamental error as John Rush does, by putting all the focus on the physical mushrooms, and none on the mushroom experience. He looks for evidence of mushrooms in christian artwork, but he doesnt look for evidence of mushroom
tripping
Can you explain more in-depth what you mean by that Max please?
meanwhile I will give my opinions about what he says etc.
I called his article dynamite because I think the question of who has infiltrated the psychedelic movement (and does) and why it is that in history, and others times, that even when certain groups or individuals may take psychedelics they still seem to not 'get it' and do horrible things like the Aztecs and sacrifices, like the ancient Christians and their myth of pure versus impure, and fallen nature, itself influenced by even earlier groups like the Orphics and Gnostics who also took mind-altering vegetation, and then you have the occult elite who very well will not be strangers to psychedelics---and so on.
I have met people online at various forums dedicated to psychedelics who --from my perspective--cliong to scientism and its mechanistic worldview and would argue me till blue in the face that mental illness is not a myth; would attack me for 'magical thinking', and gang up pn me to produce evidence for everything I say. I have met people online, and in real life (but mostly online) who even having had psychedelic experience will say 'but it just fucks you up; it is just a chemical ride' 'they distort reality'.
I have met Buddhists and others who follow Eastern and /or New Age forms of 'spiritual evolution' who even though they may admit to early psychedelic experience will say that once you get the message 'hang up the phone' implying that their way is the only truth, and continuing to be inspired from psychedelics is dangerous.
I am sure I have missed out other strange things, but you get the drift.
I wonder why and where these views originate. Is it just human diversity or is it deliberate ploys by infiltrating myths which distort the REAL potential of psychedelics. So what would I call the
real potential of psychedelics?
Well along with interest in psychedelic I have a deep interest in mythology, and guess who inspired that? John Allegro, and the reading of his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, many years ago! I saw how myth could be used to manipulate the gullible literalist readers, and hide a self-ordained elite core who would communicate to each other through various means only they could understand--both for power, but also to protect themselves from other powers.
I see all that as patriarchal, and then I was later to discover about Goddess mythology, and the theme of the Goddess and her son/
lover.
It is important at this point to know that Allegro revealed that the biblical so-called only 'Son of God' was esoterically meaning the actual physical mushroom which was believed to be miraculously appearing after thunderstorms, because they had no access to microscopic technology and couldn't see spores, and being a phallic-oriented belief system, and thus spermocentric, beliving these 'sacred mushrooms' to be full of the essence of their sky god's sperm, and therefore we get how 'God was made flesh'. The mushroom supposedly minature replicas of their phallic god.
But all that is a motif ripped off and subverted from Goddess mythology. Here is the big difference. Unlike the patriarchal understanding of a 'creator' and HIS 'creation', the Goddess
is the Earth. It is Her body, and thus even though there might not have been microsopes the mushrooms like ALL vegetation and borth came from Her Womb, and when a theme of a son/lover arises in that myhology he is the god of nature, and the magical vegetation which gives enlightenment to the Celebrant who eats the sacred fruit, and then becomes the lover of the Goddess, of nature! See the difference?
This means a lot to me because AGES before I got to read any of these books (and other books), I had personally experienced this! At 15 I was given LSD, and to cut a long story short (because I have told my story at these forums several times lol) LSD came looking for me, and it resolved the crisis I had got caught up in via the matrix which was to become dull to the wonders of nature, to fall out of love with it. The ecstasy of my experience had me deeply in love with nature once again, and this inspiration continues.
This is why I was SO shocked meeting people who HAD had psychedelics but seemed to not get the same insights as me, and I have wondered about this. Was it because I was young, and had hated school, and was kind of a free spirit also? Did the people I met take psychedelics later, and have en enforced indoctrination of 'education' and peer pressure waiting for them on their 'come down'. The pressure that claims we are machines, and life is basically meaningless and not full of spirit? Does that take them over, and even influence their very trips. They reduce the experience to chemical they are 'putting into their body for a chemical ride'?