This is A WORLD OUT OF MIND, my Online Journal where I explore Consciousness and the Ultimate Nature of Reality by the intentional alteration of my own belief structures, using Salvia Divinorum and additional self-altering meditational techniques drawn from Western Ceremonial Magic.

I always attempt to adhere to the scientific method as much as possible in my explorations, and while I often speak of these experiences as if I knew they were Truth, I always consider the alternative, that it is merely self-deception on my part, and think accordingly. Thus I maintain two parallel world views at once, one aspirational and one a safe fallback into standard materialism.

The more I journey into salviaspace, the more I think the former worldview is the correct one, but there is no objective way to prove that to the world, so I'll let you, the reader, decide for yourselves.

-Saint Brian the Godless

Follow me on Twitter @AWorldOutOfMind


Sunday, February 14, 2016

Playing With Disk Worlds



Last night, two small bowls, 50X.

Started with a one-point internal meditation on the source of my consciousness... gradually I faded out of it into a full vision. I saw portions of the room floating around me as if the room was shattered in planar fractures approximately horizontally in many places throughout, but what they really were was a group of vertical disk-worlds with myself, my sense of "I AM" fully present in all of the pieces, occupying more than eight or ten adjacent universes at once. I was playing with many disk-shaped parallel worlds in a vertical stack, feeling at once as if powerless to stop and also realizing that I was doing it on purpose for the sheer fun of it and also knowing while in that state that I have done this many times before, but was never able to recall it later.

I spent the next ten minutes or so fighting like hell to keep the memory. This time I did it. I think the totality of what I was doing, the sheer wonder of it all, the sense of awe, hit a trigger for me to fight to retain it, to take it back with me. It took considerable effort.

So I was in many identical versions of my bedroom and saw through many pairs of my eyes, the room seemingly in parts, many parts, and yet not, for it was as if I was seeing a bunch of "nearby" or adjacent universes stacked together rather than only one at a time, and I was rotating them around myself as an axis somehow, playing with them like colossal misshapen disks.

To approximately assign dimension to them, let’s say disk-ish shaped volumes of reality, all including identical versions of me in them, each somehow vertically compressed into "disk-oids" perhaps two feet thick and fifteen feet in diameter. Many of them, stacked vertically, with black gaps where they did not fit together, not being flat disks but somewhat wavy and irregular.

It was not quite like as if the room was somehow entirely solid (even the air) and a giant band-saw had cut slices horizontally through it, it was instead like many, many such solidified rooms were compressed into poorly made round "coins" all somewhat bent out of shape and wavy, each coin being a complete version of my entire worldview compressed, flattened, rounded… then stacked vertically with me, or rather my central consciousness, my "overmind," at the common pivot point near the back of the stack, for such was my perspective in the room. Like someone drove a nail through a stack of disks near the edge, and I was the nail.

Since “I” was many versions of myself all stacked one upon the other in a vertical manner, my own consciousness was this vertically-extended stack of “me’s” that, since I was perceiving this from a group perspective, was much taller than I myself was, sitting as I was in a straight-backed chair in my bedroom. I was a very tall stack of “me’s” with a single consciousness running through it that was me, only repeated many times, and all of “us” were aware of the others of “us” in the stack and what those others were seeing and sensing, so that somehow “we” remained “I," remained one consciousness, except as shared thoughts in one communal “overmind” or perhaps more accurately “mind-overlap.”

And this overlapping stacked group mind was playing with the disk worlds that comprised it's group-body like vertebrae, playing with itself, if I can say that and not conjure grossly inaccurate assumptions, by spinning the world-disks in opposing directions. One clockwise, the next one below counterclockwise, and so on in alternating fashion. Spinning disks for fun, but the disks were each a worldview, a universe. A point-of-view.

I was manipulating a group of my parallel universal viewpoints or worldviews, for pleasure. For fun.

I was conscious of many versions of myself overlaid, overlapping and occupying similar space in nearby planes, a composite me, a brotherhood of one repeated over and over… I was sharing bandwidth. Picking up nearby stations. Seeing my own self repeated in such a manner, I (composite multiple inter-cooperating "overmind" I) chose to play with it all and spin these disks made out of my overlapping perceptions. I say “I chose” because I can only assume that I must have or I wouldn’t have been doing it, but I certainly have no memory of choosing to do anything of the sort; I became fully conscious of what I was doing while I was already well into doing it.

Towards the end of this experience, as I managed to sneak a tiny amount of my rationality into the vision and be aware enough of it with my logical analytical mind, I sensed beyond doubt that the nature of reality is a massive communal dream-like state wherein we, or rather all our dreams, fit together almost, but not quite, seamlessly.

I say dreams, but our consensual reality we all live in is not really a dream. It’s not like a normal sleeping dream, at any rate. It's like a far more focused and realistic version of a dream we all dream together, with limits we ourselves impose on it. It’s just that “dream” or dream-like” is the nearest that language seems to come to the reality of what it truly is.

I got the very strong sense that we all walk around in a mobile individual dream that we update as we progress through it, and others also do this same thing, and they, or rather we, all interlock somehow. Also, all of us are subconsciously determined that it all fits seamlessly together, for when you think about it, for most people, to doubt the nature of reality itself in a manner like this is tantamount to insanity and therefore is simply terrifying to even contemplate, so we tend not to.

So out of fear that it won't make sense, it almost always does.

I knew it was real and true then. There was no doubt at the time, but I cannot say that I know it to be true now, since I am not in that state now and can see in retrospect how it might mislead me... however this time I brought so much more of the memory back with me that I feel more compelled to at least give honest credence to my own memories of it being un-doubtable, since those memories are not normally nearly this clear. I’d done this before. I remember realizing that, as I was doing it again. I’d just never been able to be rational enough to retain it like this, almost intact.

Salvia Divinorum is an utterly astonishing substance.

148 comments:

  1. Very Cool! I didn't even know Salvia Divinorum existed until I read this. I've had similar experiences but with a different astonishing substance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It exists and is legal in many US States. I think there's no hurry to make it illegal because most people who try it for recreational purposes get a short ride on a runaway freight train to hell for their trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As always, an interesting and intricate read. I'm an artemisia man myself but I always enjoy your adventures in the salvian multiverse. Thank you for your post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome. How does the "artemesia universe/multiverse" compare?

      Delete
  4. Brian, What is your opinion on the possibility of changing the consensual dream by the thoughts, feelings, or expectations we (individually) hold within it? Is that possible? Even if one doesn't go the full hog of "The Secret," surely intention, belief, desire, etc, has some effect in what amounts to a conscious universe?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm getting the impression that we change the dream by navigating toward future universes in which things are more attuned to what we are doing and thinking now. By ensconcing ourselves in positive thought we tend to navigate toward positive results. It's that easy, only it isn't, because our fears also count in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I get the strong sense that, at least for me, salvia causes me to become conscious not only of the one universe that we usually are conscious of, but also several "nearby" ones as well, at the same time. To use an outdated analogy, it's like normally I'm a record player with one needle, and on salvia I have a bunch of needles in different tracks at the same time. Building on this idea, I have at a few rare times, actually felt, sensed directly, the process of navigation into future universes. It's like we already live in a bunch of universes superimposed, so we need to firmly fix ourselves in a line that will go forward to become a separate universe in which things are more favorable to us.

    For instance, on salvia I often *hear* many more noises in my room than are normally there. Many more creakings and miscellaneous noises. So if I concentrate on the idea of listening to say, my dog making a noise in his sleep, and really concentrate on basically pretending that I'm hearing it, it often comes to pass that in a few seconds my dog makes a noise in his sleep. I get the feeling that I was listening to a wide range of possible sounds all superimposed, so that when I concentrated on one possible sound I pared off the other universes in which it didn't happen and selected the one in which is did/does.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We assume that multiverse theory says we are in one universe and it splits when we make a decision, but I sense that even our "one" universe is at least several, superimposed. We perceive an average of them, a mixture. Because these several universes are not that qualitatively different, they can be perceived as one, and any anomalies are dismissed by the mind as mistakes or illusions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We, each of our many copies, may actually perceive an average of all the universes that they occupy, believing they are only one. Their overall average impression thus hinges upon the particular mixture of universes that they are perceiving. Thus if in a minority of them we die, the remaining versions of us might feel a twinge or something, and dismiss it. If something happens in one or in a small percentage of the mixture of universes that we blend together in our minds and see as one, then it's at most a passing thought or a slight feeling to the majority of our incarnations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This way all the copies of us, each have a slightly different mixture of universes that they think of as their own one, each copy "benefits" from perceiving an average of many in that less statistically probably universes affect the group mind of the one version much less than it appears to other people viewing the unlikely event.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is speculation of course, but it's based on what I see and sense when salvia splits my mind into many.

    ReplyDelete
  11. IN this mindset, a future event is really a future universe in which that event happens as a matter of course. If we have say, a million possible future universes, and in one of them we die, this translates to a million-to-one chance of our dying in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is just a re-statement of the part of the Everitt Multiverse dealing with statistical probability and its ultimate cause in the multiverse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If strong emotion has the most power to shift you into alternate universes, and I think that it is the key to it, then imagine the danger of fear, how effective fear is and must be in shifting you not away from, but toward, the universe(s) in which what you fear actually happens to you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When you strongly envision a possible future universe, for good or bad, your mind is acting like a mathematical equation whose logical conclusion is in that universe, hence the multiverse's mathematical nature responds by completing the equation to it's natural conclusion by giving you that universe as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If I toss a six-sided dice, statistics tells us that any one result has a 1/6 chance of coming true. Does this mean that there are only six possible universes as a result? No. It tells us that there are at least six. What I think is possible, is that there is a very large number of universes that occur as a result of that toss, possibly even an infinite number, but in all those universes, in that enormous group of universes, all six results occur with equal frequency, hence it's still a 1/6 chance of any particular next-moment-universe happening.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Think about how many WAYS a dice can tumble and still give you a six. So many ways.. hundreds at least, maybe thousands... maybe millions... so all those need separate universes to occur but all give you that same identical numerical result.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You can also think of the timing of the toss as another variable that can still give you a six, and even variations in your stance, how fast you were breathing as you tossed it, many other things as well.. all these things can vary but all possibilities must happen, and multiverse theory requires a separate universe for all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hell, you can even say that as you toss that dice, there are other configurations of the other people in the room, other things happening in the world, other arrangements of the freaking asteroid belt, that could necessitate more separate universes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The idea of statistical frequency happening because of the multiverse is an interesting one. Let's use a coin instead of a dice. (I've done this before on this blog)
    The coin only allows for 2 possibilities, if you discount falling on edge. The physics of the coin is a mathematical equation that influences the number of possible results, limiting it to only two.

    So you toss the coin, and create two universes, one heads and one tails.

    But that's not the right answer. You actually create an infinity of new universes, 50% of which are heads and 50% are tails.

    Let's imagine an infinite set of the series of whole numbers 0 and 1, alternating.

    So, 0,1,0,1,0.1... to infinity.

    Now throw a dart at that infinity, select one at random to be your next-moment universe... what are your chances of hitting a 1?

    Still 50%

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hence the physics of this moment decides how many and what percentage of next-moment universes that can happen.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Now, the question that I have is, is math the main feature of this multiverse, the main ground of all being, or is consciousness, and that consciousness invented the math in it's intense desire for everything to make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Brian.

    Yes, doing away with the fear (or doubt) is a challenge for me in trying to navigate anywhere more positive. I definitely have my eye on more positivity, so that is there, I just wish I could "clamp down on my doubts" as well as you did in your attempts to move the "influence wave" towards your wife/dog.

    I'm very intrigued by your statement that you even had a spidey sense of "how" to move through this space in the direction(s) that was/were fruitful?

    It's also a very interesting question about the "pasts" of these various future universes. Near death experiencer Anita Moorjani, who was healed of cancer, says that she chose the possibility in which she was healed, while in that profoundly altered state (death, here, as opposed to Salvia!). However, it doesn't end there, though that is remarkable enough. She also had a very powerful sense that her choice "altered the past" in the version of the world she chose to go back to, such that the doctor's report on tests that were done, instead of documenting her cause of death, would now document that they weren't able to find signs of cancer...and this turned out to be so. Conceivably, any given "present moment" may have many possible "pasts" as well as many possible futures.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's all very Sethian :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I do agree with you that we may occupy a statistical blur of "world lines" and this is an idea I have had myself. It's almost as if, I don't know, the brain smooths out the "hum" or small discontinuities in that superset so that it seems to our animal senses as if we inhabit a simple, singular world. Speculation of course.

    There is another really interesting NDE about a pilot, name of Jeff, whose "world line" seemed to split into two...as if he both stayed in the crashed aircraft AND went walkabout, in a daze, leaving a trail of blood-soaked tissues. Amazing, if true. But it does seem to dovetail with some of our thoughts here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think NDE's are a lot like some salvia trips. So are some deep dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Interesting that you've had the same thought about the 'world lines.'

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are perhaps not an infinite number of "me's," however if there is a multiverse, and I truly think there is, then the number of "me's" is a very high number indeed. Millions, perhaps billions, perhaps a lot more than that.

    So with such a high number, there can be and likely would be a very high number of "me's" that are almost exactly identical to me, then another very high number of me's that are almost identical, and even more that are a little bit less identical than that, and so on and so on. So, given that, then the idea of an overlap in actual consciousness is not only probable but likely.

    I wonder too, if I change universes, is the new universe only new to me? Is it a new creation of the multiverse or is it a universe already in progress? If it were, one would expect it to have it's own version of me in it, but perhaps that version also changed away and I replaced him. Ok, so seeing where this is going, I conclude that it's most likely that they are completely new universes. Hence, given that so many people have so many versions, I conclude that there's no "economy" of universes, that the number is either infinite, or at the least limitless.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Brian A (let's say it's me) can be almost identical to Brian B and Brian B can be almost identical to Brian C, and so forth, and after a few hundred Brian's we're in a territory of Brians that are very different from Brian A, me. There can be something akin to a "spectrum" of Brians, even an infinity of them... perhaps if one goes far enough from one's original self, one encounters a Brian so very different that it's not even a Brian anymore, it's a Panther. You. Again, speculation, likely flawed, just something I throw out there.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have a fascination with the concept of Infinity. People tend to think of it as a number, but it's not. If there are an infinite number of worlds, then there *HAS TO BE* every possible world in existence, out there somewhere. Not only that, but no matter how improbable a world is, there not only has to be one out there, there has to be an infinite number of them. They can still be highly unlikely, because in the infinity of all possible worlds, there are far more (more frequently occurring) likely worlds than unlikely ones. The infinity of unlikely worlds is thus a much "smaller" infinity! You can subtract an infinity of infinities from infinity and it always remains infinity. Hence, if there are an infinity of possible worlds (and many scientists think there is, if they are believers in the Multiverse as many are) then there is also an infinity of every possible kind of world, and we can't even know what "possible" means in this context.

    So then, wonders abound.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Incidentally Panther, I couldn't "clamp down on my doubts" very well at all before I had salvia in my life. By its nature it tests you on that all the time. Sometimes I not only have to clamp down on them, but carefully regulate the balance of doubt and belief as if they were hot and cold water, a little more doubt, oh too much, a little more belief, ok, hold it here... hold it here... you're seeing it, hold it here... and so forth. Sometimes, even often, it's necessary for me to regulate the balance like that. Too much doubt kills the vision, too little and my mind won't remember the event at all! I have to slooowly introduce my conscious, analytical mind a drip at a time, so I don't destroy the vision that I want to remember before I can analyze it sufficiently to remember it in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One gets better with practice at this, and guess what? It's one of the few things that translates from salvia space, to the real world. Now, in the real world, I can stop doubting when I feel that such a thing is in my best interests. I hadn't thought much about this until just now, but it's a good thing. Salvia has trained me to regulate my doubt in material world occurrences, after I of course decide that not doubting is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  32. One of the questions about that relates to other people, or even other creatures. In those experiences where you woke your wife, with apologies to the good lady for the weirdness of this conversation, but in the interests of metaphysics...did she already exist before you "jumped" to that "universe"? Or did your choice create a version of her at that moment, a version that is spawned somehow from a deeper truth that "all consciousness is one" and that all other people are somehow echoes back to you of your own living force, somehow?

    Again, and I think we discussed this one time before, if your wife and dog exist in another "frame" then somehow that requires you in that frame too, and yet somehow the *subjective* you (of the salvia experience) manages to merge with the ("you in the world frame") so that they become one. But this does raise the question of what the difference between those two is? What determines where the subjective "you" is at any one moment, as it were, among all these possible infinite selves...or perhaps that questions is the same for all the infinite selves LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They at least exist in *potential* next-moment universes in which desired or expected results happen/will happen. That's one possibility, but then it implies that I can "go there" and then what happens to the "me" that my wife here sees after I'm gone? It would require that I selected an alternate "next-moment" universe and literally changed the track of the existing one to switch to the new track of the new one. Or of course, that my wife and indeed everyone else in my universe doesn't really exist and I'm making all of this up somehow.

      Or.. I don't know. Can you think of another possibility other than "Brian is delusional?"

      Delete
    2. No, I'd say it does seem that salvia uncovers something normally hidden from the human monkey mind...probably with good reason. It does seem that in some sense we instantiate physicality individually out of ALL_POSSIBILITY. What does this mean about other people or animals? I don't know. It's a heavy, heavy conundrum,imo.I don't want to believe I just make people up. And when I look at folks I know, or look at my pets, it seems absurd I could be creating them...but then **if** I am, it's not "little me" that's doing it, it's "cosmic me"...and that's a whole other show.

      Delete
  33. I also had a thought about your dog waking / wife waking experiences in which you appear to be sending out a "wave" of influence?

    What if that wave is actually "choice"? In other words, basically the same process that is occurring, or seems to be occurring in other of your experience, but just experienced by different symbolism. There certainly seems to be agency involved, but again that agency could be the ability to "choose" between world frames itself, and thus you move towards a world frame where your dog startles awake, and this "movement" is symbolized to your mind as an actual advancing wavefront, and IN ADDITION, the version of your dog in the target world frame actually detects this agency on your part and IS the reason he wakes up!...if that makes sense (and I'm not sure I can promise that it does, but so came the thought anyway).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have often had the thought that the wave is the wave-like border between universes, as that border, or more accurately my perception of that border, proceeds across my field of view.

      Or it can be a wave in the "dream" that is reality, our illusion of reality, a ripple in my vision of reality, some kind of disturbance that can at some level in some states, like sleep, be felt somehow.

      Or again, none of you are real. It's not that I don't consider that, because I consider everything, but there's no way to prove it one way or the other so I *choose* to buy into this reality as presented. Believing this is all my delusion, is I think a bridge too far for me. Why would I? I can choose to, but there's really no point to it.

      It's like analyzing love. Love dies under analysis, so in a way it's a delusion, but so what? A delusion by another name may be a preferable and beneficial pattern of thought, and it leads to good things, so why doubt in it and in doing so destroy it when you can enjoy it?

      Delete
  34. Doubt and skepticism is a function of the Analytical Logical Linear (Yang) mind. As such it acts much like it's symbol on the Tarot, the Sword. It separates and divides things until there's only one answer left. As such, it s not surprising that the analytical mind pares down universes so that they fit into the paradigm of what constitutes consensual reality. Salvia visions do not fit into the paradigm, and as such are not only lost when the memory of them is accessed by the analytical mind, but even prevented from happening when one employs the analytical mind in the middle of a vision. (Or so it seems to me)
    If indeed we establish what reality is as a gestalt consciousness at some level, we do so with the analytical mind. Even if it's rife with errors and false assumptions, as say a religious conservative. The analytical mind does not have to be correct, to function to pare reality down to one belief (of what reality is) and police it to make sure it never strays from that belief.

    In most mystical system, whether Eastern or Western, the very concept of enlightenment is hinged on an inner balance of opposites. Hence in the balanced person the analytical mind is assisted by the intuitive (emotional, Yin) mind, and the Intuitive mind is trained to be more and more accurate by the analytical mind. All spiritual gains seem to be dependent upon achieving such balances in various areas of the personality, and it's not surprising that attaining yet another kind of balance is necessary for further progress in such endeavors.

    ReplyDelete
  35. With respect to All Possibilities, I kind of glean the suspicion that these things exist in a sense that we don't grok. Usually we think of "possibilities" as a kind of notional, intellectual abstraction. Multiverse theory, on the other hand, likes to concretize them into actual physical universes, or physical strands in one grander universe, whatever. But a part of me wonders whether there isn't some kind of third option that we aren't really grokking, because it's too far removed from what we understand. As if...what we think of as "possibilities" are in some sense actually more spiritually real than what are here called physical realities, and a physical reality is a kind of carbon freeze of one of these. Of course, I don't have any idea what that really means but it seems to have something going for it. I don't know what to make of the idea that there is a PHYSICAL version of the earth somewhere where the Borg really exist and they've assimilated humanity. My ability to suspend disbelief pretty much snaps at that point...but then, maybe that's because we humans can't cope with infinity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on whether the Borg are possible somehow. Perhaps so, perhaps not. For instance, intergalactic domination is limited not only by lightspeed, but by the nature of time itself. At vast differences, variations of velocity, even slight ones, can influence time. For instance, let's say you and I have a magic communicator that avoids all rules, in that it's instantaneous no matter how far away you are. Ok, so you and I are ten thousand light years apart. What are our relative velocities? If we're stable with each other, we can talk. But we won't be, because literally if you were to walk away from me at 2 miles an hour, I'd be hundreds of years in your past, and if you walked toward me at two miles an hour I'd be hundreds of years in your future. Star Trek is not possible. Neither are the Borg. So in all universes where the can occur, they can't occur. Hence they won't occur, even in an infinity of universes like ours.

      And who knows what other limitations there are?

      Delete
    2. But if ALL possibilities exist, there must be possible universes in which the laws of time and space are different. In a sense though, this is as tough to believe as a version of "me" that looks nothing like me and acts nothing like me. It becomes a question of what we even mean by that. If there should be no essential self (*and I think that's moot) then of course the spectrum of "mes" could just keep diverging until I am not male, not human, not even an animal...etc.

      Delete
    3. If laws of time and space are different, we're not there in any form. The Borg exist in a universe that has humans in it. :-)

      Delete
    4. I do know what you mean. But see, "laws" themselves become and oddity in this picture. If one takes seriously the idea of "laws" (despite its legal, and hence dubious, origins) then I see no reason to suppose that an infinite spectrum does not apply to those too (and even the idea of such a spectrum is itself putting forward a kind of law). I mean, my Borg comment wasn't serious, and you may be right, but I think we have to be careful about making any final claims about what is impossible in "infinity." We cannot really grasp infinity. The creature brain isn't formed for it. Anyway, time for bed here...

      Delete
  36. See, while I consider the multiverse believable and indeed I think it's real, at what level is it real if all reality is an illusion? Because that's just as likely, I think. I may be seeing what I wish to see here, no? I'm a science nerd, love the idea of quantum physics, the mystery where we thought we knew it all, the multiverse, what a wonder, right?

    But I do not lose sight of the Zen parable of the flag. Two students arguing. One says "The Flag moves!" The other says "The Wind moves!" So they asked the Master, and the Master said, "It is not the flag that moves, or the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves."

    I take it to mean, beware of all preconceptions and analyses, for reality never claimed it is what we think it is, no matter what we think it is or how certain we are. The nature of Maya is that is has any nature we believe it to have. Maya deceives, but because it's a mirror, not a liar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is true, though many other people have experiences the "massively parallel" thing on Salvia. I doubt they are all science nerds. You largely seem to have been spared the "hellish loops" thing...which seems to be the other main manifestation of "repetition" under Salvia. One way or another, possibilities filter into our lives. In a sense, what matters is how we can understand how to bring them to us with greater conscious efficacy. If I could do THAT, I would probably be satisfted enough for this lifetime, and I wouldn't trouble too much about the exact metaphysical or science meaning of it. Just my thought.

      This is what really interests me MOST about your experiences...how we could navigate more efficiently within these possibilities. In a way that actually gives results in some sense, even if those results are only subjective to the person involved. In other words, I don't think I would need a scientists to verify for me that I was moving in the right direction through possibility space, if indeed I was.

      Delete
    2. I've found that the techniques of western ceremonial magic are good tools to alter expectations. That's what I did before salvia. Visualization exercises, ornate ceremonies, pantheons of gods to choose from as symbols, many self-hypnotic techniques that create belief. So that worked a bit for me, at any rate. Depends on what you resonate with, in the sens of what appeals to your psyche. Kundalini Yoga maybe.

      Delete
  37. What is the "the "hellish loops"" thing?

    I've experienced The Great Wheel a number of times, been destroyed in more ways than I can count, stretched like an elestic band until I felt my consciousness snap, and had torturous visions of various freakiness, all more or less terrifying, but over time the terror goes away and it's more of an uncomfortable thing that I know will pass. (I didn't used to know they would pass, since such a thing would only happen when I was unaware that I'd even taken salvia, but now I carry that knowledge with me in most circumstances no matter how chaotic)

    ReplyDelete
  38. I even had recurring nightmares of The Great Wheel when I was seven years old with no salvia. Childhood hallucinations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Brian,

    Hopefully you remember me from past comments (fellow Salvia enthusiast). Just wanted to pose some questions that popped into my head:

    WHY Salvia? Why is it that this specific plant induces these groundbreaking effects? Doesn't it seem counter-intuitive to think that a PLANT is capable of shifting our consciousness into this higher-dimensional perception. Any thoughts on the molecule specifically (Salvinorin A), and how it relates to the multiverse? And why?

    Have you ever wondered if the Salvia state of consciousness can be accessed WITHOUT Salvia? If we are truly existing within a multiverse, doesn't it seem reaonsable to think that we shouldn't NEED Salvia to access the higher-dimensional multiverse state which is, after all, 'native' to us?

    If we assume there are infinite universes, doesn't that rule out the simultation argument (that we exist within a very advanced computer simulation, perhaps one with a "dreamlike" consciousness interface of sorts). Max Tegmark advocates the simulation argument. The problem with infinite universes is, every computer system that we know of has limited resources. Logically, that would lead us to believe a computer-simulated multiverse could not actually be infinite (that is, unless the computer system is so advanced that it somehow has infinite resources).

    Maybe we should think about reductionism. What if all the possible universes DO NOT exist right now; rather, they only come into existence when they absolutely MUST exist. That would surely cut down on resource consumption of a computer simulation.

    Another related idea is a mathematical function or algorithm. An algorithm can produce infinitely many unique outcomes, yet all of those inifite outcomes are neatly represented by a very short mathematical expression. So, those outcomes don't need to "exist" in their own right. Only the algorithm itself ever "needs" to exist, since it is like the blueprint. My point is, maybe there are indeed infinitely many universes, but they do not actually exist until somebody is observing them. If there is no observer, those universes only exist "conceptually" or "mathematically" as a potential outcome that can be calculated into existence by the intrinsic algorithm. Maybe this could in some way be related to the Schrödinger equation?

    Blah, just speculation of course.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nowhere in Tegmark's book did he advocate the simulation argument. Pretty certain there. He mentioned it, but never said he advocated it. He advocates the possibility that we're all mathematical objects in a universe that is another huge mathematical object. No computer required, the universe is literally made up of mathematics, so are we, so we see it as "real."

    ReplyDelete
  41. I get multiverse versions of one kind or another almost every time I take salvia. I didn't last night because the cat was in the room and when I did my one hit and sat down cross-legged on the bed she started chirping at me, then (and this was bizarre for her) sat on my raised knee and pirouetted and licked my hands a lot so I woke up out of it. However, most times I do. And apparently others do as well. Not sure what's special about salvia, except it is special chemically, affects unusual area of brain... but still. I think science has determined that it affects an area of the mind where a cycle takes place that is responsible for your view of the world, splits it up into many "cycles."

    ReplyDelete
  42. I personally discount the idea of a simulation. I don't see it, myself. It pushes the origin problem (such as it is) back another step, but doesn't solve it.

    Same with the hologram idea. It doesn't require aliens, but it too still seems another way to push off the problem.

    The math says "Everitt Many-Worlds Type Multiverse." Some scientists don't like that conclusion, but in order to reach another one they have to modify the math that already works just fine, often introducing problems that cause it to not work as fine.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Also, the point of me introducing my spiel about Infinity, is if there are Infinite or at least Unlimited possible worlds, then we can throw out the very concept of there needing to be any kind of economy of Universes, the idea that there is ever any need whatsoever to save storage space or the equivalent. With Infinity in the mix, the opposite is true. Instead of worrying about how many universes that pop up for seemingly silly reasons, the whole thing becomes WHY NOT? As in, why not have as many as you need, even with ridiculous redundancies. IN an Infinity, all possible options not only occur but necessarily occur infinite times.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I like to think all Universes do not exist yet but I think that there's no mathematical reason for that to be true. Quantum physics sees time as "everything has already happened "somewhere" because not only is the past still real but the future is too. All possible futures. We just seem to get to choose which ones we navigate to, which I do admit does suggest that they only exist "in potential," but again, that's not what the math says. Hence, a conundrum in that area.

    ReplyDelete
  45. To quantum physics, I'm a world line, and with Multiverse that line is branching all the time, but it "exists" in all it's tree-like glory as a whole. Somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The easy way out, is to say that while the effect of a multiverse might be real, the reality of it might be a consciousness-based or mathematics-based phenomenon, so that it can "break the rules" of our precious theories, just as it broke the rules (eventually) of Classical Physics. Our worldview always seems to point somewhere and then eventually morph so that new complexity is revealed, which can be just how it happens to happen, or it can be the Illusion of Maya painting our expected pictures for us up till they are examined in too much detail for them to hold together any more.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I think Tegmark said the simulation idea was possible. I think that was it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I can postulate that when I see the multiverse or even navigate to a "next-moment Universe" in which I get some goal that I wanted to get, that all versions of me that are enough like me to be superimposed on my consciousness are also taking salvia so they all trip out, and some of them do not manage to navigate to that goal, which might be why this sort of thing isn't more reliable since we in effect "compete" with other versions of us in reaching that goal, but then again that goal Universe can be an Infinity of identical or almost identical goal universes in which the goal event happens. Still doesn't resolve the problem, really.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Still doesn't resolve the problem because by definition, any goal universe that I try to reach already by necessity has a version of me already living in it. And in all likelihood that version is, like me, trying to reach a goal universe of similar type.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Do we all "change seats" a la Musical chairs? Does the spectrum of versions of me just "slide down one chair?" Again, seems problematic. There'd have to be an odd "me" out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if we say there are infinite goal universes, then this may not be a problem after all. With an infinite set of goal universes, there will always be another "chair" for each version of you to slide down into.

      To illustrate, there is a thought experiment called "Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel" (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel).

      A hotel with infinite rooms can always make room for one new guest, simply by sliding every other guest down a room. The guest in room n will be moved to room n+1. After all guests have been moved, room 1 is empty, and the new guest now has a room to occupy.

      (and yes, I am re-reading this whole thread again after about 1.5 years... lol)

      Delete
  51. Of course, there would also be an Infinity of Universes in which I am just about to die, so maybe I'm jumping to one of those and stepping in to where I was just leaving anyhow.. I think you can see that that's not a logical hypothesis either.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Are there versions of me out there that "suffer" every time I succeed at reaching a "goal universe?" Who, in their universes, fail to reach it, and are stuck in one where they do not, because I did? Again, seems silly somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I appreciate this conversation about this problem because it's a thorny one, problematic to say the least, and very hard to think about if you're not having a conversation and writing it down and concentrating like we are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  54. To me, it feels like the New, Next-Moment Universes that I navigate to all the time, come into being when I enter them, and my old timeline fades out somehow. Yet, how can that be? Also, the math doesn't indicate any such thing. And also also, when I asked "the Lady" about it, she told me that "all of these universes are purely psychological." What then of that?

    ReplyDelete
  55. To me at the time, "purely psychological" meant something beyond being made of consciousness, like a mathematical type of consciousness that explains why everything seems to follow mathematical rules. It meant, completely illusory. Even science. Even math, possibly.

    ReplyDelete
  56. So, I don't know what is real. I do keep trying to figure it out though. Perhaps it's a fool's errand. The concept of Multiverse explains many things, but raises other problems in the long run. Nothing else in science seems even close to being able to explain the seemingly mercurial nature of reality. Except of course, the "all is illusion" option.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Of course, we just might be stupid. We (science) (or me, for that matter) might be barely scratching the surface of the truth and not realize that the real truth is much more complex, relying on things we haven't even got an inkling of yet. There's always that.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Another option is that while each of us exists in many universes, there is only one "central consciousness" and it somehow partakes of all the possible "me's." Or even, there's only one "me," one sense of "I AM" but it navigates to new universes that do not become real, that exist but only in potential, unless that one node of my personal consciousness enters them. How the hell can that be real? Dunno.

    ReplyDelete
  59. We humans keep thinking up the answers, and the universe keeps changing the game, or so it seems. Sure, we seem close right now, but at the turn of the 20th century a hundred and ten years ago physicists honestly thought that all they needed to do is "dot a few i's and cross a few t's" and we'd know the complete picture, then Quantum Physics happened and it threw it all into a cocked hat. Before that, same thing over and over throughout our history. Who's to say that that game ever ends?

    ReplyDelete
  60. So I exist in a perpetual state of combined wonder and frustration, seeming to be so close to some kind of an answer, but always below the 50% mark on certainty, never going over the point where I can consider it the "probable right answer." Dammit.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Maybe in order to see the real answer we need to be able to perceive in 11 dimensions. In other words, we're not gonna ever see the answer, but maybe our mathematics can still reach it. Or maybe we need to discover some "X" rule that we haven't even got a clue about yet. So many possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It's not wholly uncharted territory. One thing that lends some credence is that certain other visionaries (not on Salvia)...NDErs or mystics, have also said that there is an infinite well of potentiality somehow, and this gets drawn down into actuality by some kind of process in the living, physical condition. But as I said earlier, our *human* idea that the particular option which is drawn down is somehow the more "real" one or the "privileged" one in some sense, may be the illusion. It's almost as if we can only see "so much Realness" at one time, and in our present human state, this is limited to an apparent one-line possibility strand in something we call linear time. For you, under Salvia, this expands into a "local cloud." For mystics in a deep experience, it seems to expand to all things, as if, from THAT state or condition, they are all in effect real. I think there's a kind of paradox involved that centers around the subjective sense of limitation that the "I AM" consciousness has of itself in what we would call any given situation, and that it probably exceeds binary logic. I myself, while I have a background in science, don't really think that mechanistic sciences will be enough to cut it in this arena, or even mathematics. Other major things, such as emotion, appear to be critical variables in the process.

    So for example, transcending binary logic, I'm not sure it really makes sense to say EITHER that a world-frame you enter is "created" when you enter it OR that it "already existed" before you entered it. As I alluded to earlier, I kind of sniff the suspicion that these options are both limitations of our constrained way of seeing things, and that in some sense both are true, or neither are true, and a third more sophisticated and subtle option that our brains can't grok is true. And that actually seems highly likely to me, imo. The loss of information on "the other side" when "coming back" has always been an issue in any penetration to profound altered states, as I know you'll be aware.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yes. That all makes perfect sense. Thank you. I agree. It's similar to my most recent reply above, the "11 dimensions" one. The unknown thing that prevents us from seeing the answer. It may well be and may even likely be something to do with the concept of the I AM, the idea of "we're all one consciousness" because with that much that seems illogical may be rendered comprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I can grok "I am you" but it's the "you are also me" that seems less plausible somehow, due to my unavoidably egocentric viewpoint. If my wife is also me, this may introduce unforseen variables.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Incidentally, while I only seem to "see" similar versions of me, I often get the strong sense that everything that I see, all of it, all people, all the Universe, is also me. So while my visions seem limited, my "sense" of reality that is brought on by salvia, is as wide in scope as any mystical one.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Although, a while back I had the vision where an opening in space happened in front of me and I saw my hand in the other world, even though my real hands were at my sides, holding a document in a poorly-lit room that seemed totally alien, medieval even. So in that instance I seemed to see a version of myself that was very different indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I would certainly be interested in any further thoughts or advices you might have one how to navigate through possibility space, Brian. That is something which (for personal reasons) I have large motives to attempt to do. I realize you aren't a guru on it, or something, but you do seem to be in a somewhat unique position because of the insights/perceptions you can glean inside your experiences. Alas, the possibilities I wish to access are "distant" in probability space. Even if one can't leap there in one giant bound, how would one move in the general direction of such a desired outcome? Any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Incrementally over time, with any sort of effective "self-hypnosis" technique. I used ceremonial magic. It creates a sense of importance and significance that allays disbelief, in my opinion. I managed to move to favorable outcomes rather frequently when employing it.

    What is necessary is to be able to believe that your outcome is in your personal future, that it will occur. At least, this is my opinion. Eliminate doubt and you eliminate that which stands in your way.

    Other than that, or something similar, I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  69. What you can't do, is take salvia and retain your purpose when you're out there tripping balls. You forget your goal if you're far enough out there to accomplish it. I have trouble even remembering that I need to remember shit. That's the challenge for me.

    Learn how to achieve a state of what is called "gnosis." Communion with the ALL... In that state, you can affirm something and the universe 'listens.' It involves inflaming yourself with emotion, cancelling out your rational side. This is the goal of ceremonial magic, and other systems as well.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I can use smaller non-trip-strength doses of salvia to help me meditate and then do magic, however. It's really helpful for concentration purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  71. It's not a matter of desire, either, Desiring the goal gets in the way of being convinced that you're going to get it. It sets up interference in the mental process, for desire implies you don't have the goal or may not get it. Eliminate desire, eliminate doubt, focus like a laser on the goal already being certain to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Visualization is also key. Verbal desires don't count. You have to picture you getting it, having it already. This is not easy stuff, by the way. I'm hardly great at it myself... more like a hopeful student with some success under my belt.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Yeah, expectation is a real tough cookie. Desire comes easiest of course, and I suppose that desire has to be in there somewhere, or there wouldn't even be the motivation to move. Then becomes belief, which is trickier, and finally expectation, which is hardest, for me anyway.

    I have noticed a significant upturn in synchronicities and precognitive-style dreams through being invested in this, however. I like to assume this means that "something" is happening. Some of these have been quite extraordinary in themselves, though they (a little bit frustratingly) seem to have no content directly relevant to anything I may be intending.

    ReplyDelete
  74. A synchronicity is the identical mechanism that allows magic and positive thought to work. Your mind creates a strong pattern, and reality echoes it back to you. That's how I see it. So it's a sign that you're on the right track and you're thinking in a manner that creates the response. For me it's almost always humor. I make a joke about a parrot and without me knowing it an identical parrot comes on the TV behind me that I can't see but everyone else can. I make a joke about getting dessert but I don't want to spend the money and the bartender asks me if I can eat a free extra dessert of the same kind that I wanted. It's almost always a humorous thought, at least for me. So what's the significance of a humorous thought? It has positive energy of some kind. As thoughts go, it's stronger than normal thinking, more strongly imagined in the mind, and we laugh which also is possibly an action that creates a short period of gnosis in the mind. A short "blackout" of the higher functions, leaving only emotional thought with no analytical attachments.

    Things reputed to produce gnosis: Laughter, rage (in some people, not me,) religious ecstasy (inflaming the mind with prayer,) sexual orgasm (The "secret" of the OTO, a magical society,) and other similar things that produce a discontinuity in the normal flow of thought.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Emotionally significant ornate ceremony that builds to a "climax" at the end, is another way, the way of Ceremonial Magic.

    ReplyDelete
  76. In Eastern tantra you can also find sexual techniques for raising energy and attaining gnostic states.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Oh, and rhythmic drumming (the path of the shaman) and dancing (used by most Wiccans) are also ways to achieve gnosis.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Also, the famous Sufi "Whirling Dervishes" spin in circles to attain gnosis.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Synchronicities that started in my life after a very significant lucid dream, are the original reason that I set foot on this path. They were too significant to ignore as standard statistical anomalies.

    ReplyDelete
  80. There's an element of "humor" (or one might more accurately say "absurdity") to my synchronicities or precognitive moments, but with me, thus far anyway, they don't seem related to anything I've consciously thought or said beforehand.It's almost like the subconscious simply notifying me that these are happening. I have a dream in the morning and then a conversation later in the day name drops phrases, or actual names, into the conversation, that kind of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Or I will dream something odd that I find myself looking at on the internet a few hours later, usually by some spontaneous or random trail that couldn't have been anticipated in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Another thing I find frustrating is that it almost seems like there's this die-back in power from altered states back to the waking state, as if the baseline waking state is the weakest possible state from which we can try to induce these principles or effects. Profound altered states seem to carry more raw voltage, but as you said yourself, you often "lose your mind" in them and so can't even remember that you had a project or purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Yes, that's why I often think of salvia as "jet fuel for the mind" or "powdered God." It seems to be a fuel of some kind, producing palpable rushes of what almost seem to be raw electricity. So powerful compared to "normal mind."

    ReplyDelete
  84. It sometimes seems that the only reason it gives me visions is that it amps up my mental energy so much that the raw power lets me see things that are normally invisible.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Hey Brian,

    You were right about Tegmark not advocating the simulation argument (my bad).

    I see what you mean. Yes, the simulation argument does push the origin problem back and does not solve it. But then again, what if there actually is no origin at all?

    Maybe ultimate reality has no origin. A chicken-or-egg paradox. A "dream within a dream within a dream", or a "simulation within a simulation within a simulation", ad infinitum. An endless and beginningless loop, something like the ouroboros.

    If you speculate that every possible universe may exist, then you must also speculate that every possible universe exists where we invent a super-advanced, super-realistic, super-accurate simulation of our own universe/multiverse (perhaps running on a quantum computer).

    In those specific universes, we invent our own simulation and run it. This causes ultimate reality to recurse one level "deeper". The inhabitants of the new simulation will then (after eons of evolution) go on to create their own simulation, which will again create its own simulation, ad infinitum. Logically, we would then speculate that we ourselves (and our whole multiverse) is a simulation too, and it is running in a universe/multiverse one level "upward" or "outward", and that level too is also a simulation, ad infinitum. So ultimate reality would appear to be an infinite nested structure, kind of like Matryoshka dolls, except with no origin and no end.

    On a different note, just had to share this too - Google's "Deep Dream" project:

    https://vimeo.com/132462576

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCE-QeDfXtA


    And some description of how it works:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cbelv/eli5_can_anyone_explain_googles_deep_dream/

    http://googleresearch.blogspot.ch/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html

    ReplyDelete
  86. I think it's likely there is no 'beginning' to everything, to the multiverse at any rate. True "nothingness" does not exist. If true nothingness ever had existed, everywhere I mean, truly nothing anywhere, no "quantum foam" or anything, then how could it ever start? So logic tells me that it never did.

    Or... or there's one more place that logic can lead, to the idea that there's still nothing now, nothing at all is real except for information, or mind, or math, something immaterial like that, and we only believe everything is "real."

    ReplyDelete
  87. Thing is, when I analyze this issue, really think about it, I think that when we consider the two statements "There has always been something" and "there has never been anything" that the second one is much more likely and rational.

    ReplyDelete
  88. If you speculate that every possible universe may exist, then you must also speculate that every possible universe exists where we invent a super-advanced, super-realistic, super-accurate simulation of our own universe/multiverse (perhaps running on a quantum computer).
    ------------------------------
    Perhaps, but perhaps those universes are very infrequent compared to normal one in which the civilization doesn't. Or perhaps no matter how sophisticated the computer is it never can actually create self-aware beings, only advanced simulations of them, meaning that none can have a "self" or an "I AM" sense of being.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Add to that last point the idea that while it's possible that these computer simulations exist, what race would run one for so long as to allow the artificial beings within to create another one, and so on, ad infinitum? Some race is still running the one that happened ten million computers ago?

    ReplyDelete
  90. We know that mathematically in an Inflationary type Multiverse "bubble" universes can happen in which there's a big bang and an infinite boundless future. These bubble universes can be (get this) boundless and infinite on the inside, but finite on the outside. (Wrap your head around that for a minute!) So from the point of the inflationary exterior, there's no beginning to everything, it's an ongoing infinite process, in which finite bubbles pop up that are infinite on the inside.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I assume that if there never was anything in the sense of what we think is real, matter energy space and time etc, if that is not *real* in the sense that we think it is, then nothing could arise from that "nothing" that is truly empty space, or even no space at all either, however, if reality is an illusion, then we have ZERO IDEA what real "emptiness" would be like. So maybe it wouldn't be truly empty space, or even worse nothing existing at all, not even space. We can't say what it would be like. It's not possible because we have no reference for such a thing. So maybe it's "fertile" in some sense, naturally bringing forth either a consciousness, or mathematics, or even matter, energy, space and time. No way to tell, 'cause we're inside the box and trying to figure out the outside.

    ReplyDelete
  92. If reality is consciousness (or even if reality is mathematics and mathematics at that level is indistinguishable from consciousness) then perhaps no simulation created within it can have beings in it that are truly conscious, because in that case none of those simulated beings can "partake of" the real thing.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I think one could possibly say that, in any "place" that is based on some form of consciousness, rather than empty, dead matter and so forth, mathematics cannot NOT exist. So that would solve the origin problem right there, if Tegmark is right of course.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Reality conforms to mathematics. Many "real things" like particles or even empty space, are entirely defined by mathematics.

    Tegmark thinks this is because reality itself is mathemnatics, but another possibility is that reality is consciousness, and consciousness requires mathematics.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Brian, on the tantric thing:

    I have often wondered why, of all the people in the world fantasizing of intimate relations with their favorite celebrity or whatever, while engaged in some version of a sexual act, doesn't cause their intent to realize. I mean, isn't that the definitive case of being "lost in the moment" and hence the rational mind NOT getting in the way? I mean, surely if anything should be effective, you would expect that to be. But there doesn't seem to be any great number of people manifesting their favorite celerbity into their personal lives. It's things like that which cause doubts to creep in for me... :(

    ReplyDelete
  96. When orgasming while visualizing a favorite celebrity, one does not affirm to themselves that they will in reality sleep with them, just that they find them attractive. In fact, I'd wager most such people know full well that they'll never sleep with the person, hence they do get their "fantasy" affirmed and realized.

    ReplyDelete
  97. One would logically assume that highly unlikely events would at minimum take much longer, more of an extended effort over time, and more certainty that the result will in fact occur.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Plus, one would also assume that any result attained while visualizing a celebrity would be to perhaps sleep with someone that looked like the person, way before the actual celebrity orders a pizza from you or has you come over to fix her sink.

    ReplyDelete
  99. And finally, to attain a very improbable goal, even magically, one not only affirms the goal in ceremony but takes real-world steps to make that goal as likely as possible. So, becoming a pizza-delivery person in their neighborhood perhaps... lol.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Of course, sometimes magic works even with improbable events:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBTMEVa9rg0

    ReplyDelete
  101. Problem with affirmations/magic: It's easy to affirm the wrong thing. For example, if you affirm that you will be powerful (have money, etc) then you will not acquire power, you will acquire egotism. To acquire real power you must affirm and desire the qualities that confer power, such as wisdom, good judgement, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I see what you're saying (and I'm not fantasizing about celebrities by the way...I'm just using it as an example). But one of the tenets of intention seems to be to imagine it as "already fulfilled." This is what I was driving at when I was floating the idea that people are surely lost in the orgasmic moment, rather than still "fantasizing"? Is there any room left over to fantasize in that condition?

    ReplyDelete
  103. It's not a fantasy per se, it's an intention, a clearly imagined (with force) visual, tactile, auditory, or whatever, imagination of your desire. And yes, it is possible with practice.

    Aliester Crowley used to have sex with his mistress while calling out chess moves to a friend with a chessboard in the next room.

    That's a little bit much for me, but you get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I agree with you about what you are saying about acting in the real world too, but again that seems difficult. Some sources seem to warn you not to do, while others tell you to do it. The difficulty is, if there's no "clear" signal, how are you supposed to know that whatever you are doing is co-operating with other influences in the universe and not interfering with them, or in the basket case, downright making things worse and thus LESS likely. I struggle with that bit a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  105. The idea is, when you feel the "rush" you focus on your intention. If your goal is maximum enjoyment of the sex, it won't work. But if your goal is to add power to your thought, then it does.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "It's not a fantasy per se, it's an intention, a clearly imagined (with force) visual, tactile, auditory, or whatever, imagination of your desire. And yes, it is possible with practice."

    That's what I meant though. Aren't people already roughly in that state, because of the intensity of sexual ecstatics? In other words, they are simply experiencing the union they are imagining at the point...which is supposed to be the ideal state according to some sources (imagine it as already assumed). I don't know...maybe I'm just not getting the difference. So,to be clear...if I was imagining union with an idealized partner, at the moment of climax, I am still thinking "of" that state, or is the orgasm enough to make someone think "in" that state, or "from" it...whatever. Isn't that the very condition said to call forth successful intentions?

    ReplyDelete
  107. One tries to have clear intentions that do not create feelings of guilt, and are specific. Generally if it works, there's no blowback.

    ReplyDelete
  108. No, you shut down the fantasy of the lover and focus entirely on the intention. You do this by waiting until the 'point of no return" before switching focus.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Sex magic is the "deep dark secret" of many 19th-20th century Magical Societies, such as the OTO.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Many magical mind training is difficult stuff, incidentally. In one old book one exercise consisted of taking a box of dried peas or lentils and scattering them all over your floor, then *carefully, slowly, and with clear intention" pick them up one at a time and put each back in the box.*

    ReplyDelete
  111. "I think science has determined that it affects an area of the mind where a cycle takes place that is responsible for your view of the world, splits it up into many "cycles." "

    When I was mentioning the "hellish loops" some people had experienced, what I meant was, say, they would hear themselves utter a phrase to a friend,then they would experience going back to the beginning of that phrase and uttering it again...not a repeat, the same instance...and then again...and again...and again...unable to break free. As you were saying with "cycles"...it seems like a variation of the many universes thing? What would be your response to the skeptic (not me) who would say you are just seeing the broken mirror of your brain's subjective sense of time, or subjective sense of "possibility" perhaps. I know that you're not committed to any particular view absolutely, but you do seem to lean towards these multiple images/worlds being real in some sense, after some version of a multiversal picture?

    ReplyDelete
  112. I want to lean toward it but the only evidence that I really have are the synchronicities and waking up my wife or dog or whatever as I have *seemed to* many times on salvia. As you are no doubt well aware, this is hardly proof or ever conclusive.

    When you consider that we all are living in a dream in that (and this is what science says too) we construct a sensory fantasy designed based upon our sensory input. We all live in a dream in that sense, so this is likely to give false data points to someone like me seemingly indicating that reality itself is a dream. I get all of this, even viscerally. That's why I don't commit to anything as a belief.

    ReplyDelete
  113. There's another NDE that might interest you. I think this guy was a veteran caught in an attack or something. He felt that "there was a version of the world in which I died that day" but a "powerful life force" somehow swapped him to a version where he survived instead. This seems very similar to some of your own experience, just more dramatic in scale. He also said that he had the feeling that life was somehow run on multiple such tracks, perhaps even millions. Again, this seems at least like a kind of corroboration, the more valuable because salvia was not involved at any point.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I misquoted him a little. His actual pertinent remarks were these:

    "There exists a reality in which I died that day. A powerful life-force simply switched the channels of reality opening new doors of perception and now I was in an alternate life track where I hadn’t died. There may be millions of these alternate channels or tracts of reality, all happening simultaneously."

    "I felt like I had entered a multi-dimentional space, as though reality was simultaneously many things and time/space could be changed as though clicking a TV channel switcher."

    "It seemed as though life is being lived on many different time/space tracks, and that if you died in one. a powerful life-force shifts you to "change channels" and pick up in an alternative life."

    ReplyDelete
  115. Indeed, and that one is indeed interesting to me.

    Plus, although weak as evidence, the fact that many times while "out there" I made myself remember a "message" to take back to my regular self, saying basically "I am seeing things right now that leave me with no doubt, there can be no doubt that these visions are real, that reality is like this it's real" but I can't bring back *those* visions, so I have to take my word on it. (I don't think that last sentence is typed by humans very often) In other words, since all I can bring back is my own word that this it all real, I can't trust in it. It's nice to know, though, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  116. That's an amazing similarity to my visions of what reality is.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I should mention something... about gnosis. There are (so I've read many times) 2 basic categories of ways to attain it. The Western and the Eastern approach. The Eastern way is to empty the mind. The Western way is to fill the mind with imagery.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Like that NDE, I've felt my mind tuning into frequencies of some sort, and even been able to tune it around the "dial" myself, seeing images appear as I changed to different "channels." It's a very realistic feeling of your mind increasing it's power to a higher "channel." I think that unfortunately the metaphors here take away from how profound the experience is, but it's still the best way too describe it.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I remember one time (written up somewhere on my blog) I was looking at my dresser in front of me, and felt a strange feeling in my eyes and head, like electricity... I concentrated on it, and began to get a sense that I could modulate it, increase the feeling... as I did this a silvery area appeared on the dresser... I increased the power level, and it grew, became a window, and I "went into it" and it was a vast green forest with infinite paths to seemingly everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  120. For some reason it reminded me of the "back doors" in "The Matrix" movies, except it looked nothing like them.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Anita's is also similar, to be honest, because she says "it was like *nothing* is real, but *every single possibility exists* as well."

    And also

    "Time seems to have a completely different meaning. What I felt was that all possibilities exist simultaneously - it just depends which one you choose."

    And

    "To me, it feels like every possibility I could ever conceive already exists in that dimension. And I am able to bring these possibilities into my 3D reality by expanding my consciousness to let it in."

    ReplyDelete
  122. There was also a man called Charles Essert, who had a very powerful mystical experience, and wrote about it in a book called "Secret Splendor" (it's a very good book). He said:

    "From [that other dimension's - which Essert calls "the soul" but admits this is just another label] infinite depths come all effects: out of its wisdom are born all experiences, yet in one sense of the word they are not born, for they already exist. All potentialities, all possible relationships, all circumstances and realizations, exist as living realities in its infinite wisdom."

    And

    "The third realization was that I had called forth certain of these infinite possibilities, and they manifested for me as experiences. I had not "created" a single condition by my thinking, but my *needs* brought them forth and made it possible for them to be experienced. It was a profound and startling realization."

    And

    "Thus [The Soul] is the "well of living water" that contains all that we can ever know or experience, and the experiences themselves are now living realities, having their existence in the mysterious realm of cause."

    ReplyDelete
  123. It seems (to me anyway) that you are all saying very similar things about this...it's just stated in different colors of language.

    ReplyDelete
  124. So maybe there's something to my visions. Or maybe the near-death thing creates a mental state similar to salvia where you're deceived by the brain as it loses it's coherence. I like to think the former though.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Well, sometimes skepticism can get overwrought. Although being "scientific" about it all, is laudable in its own way, that's also a "world view" or membrane that is laid over things that isn't necessarily the way things are, and may be distorting them.

    Essert wasn't near death, and it would be an awful interesting loss of coherence that managed to reverse A.M.'s stage IV lymphoma.

    One of Essert's big themes is that the rational mind is actually antagonistic to the mode of functioning of these states (intuitive states)...we don't "think" in them, they're gnostic (with a small g). And by bringing too much skeptico-science to them, even notionally, we may actually be aggravating difficulties that interfere with their occurrence (or expansion). And I do think there's something to that.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Now ya see, that's how I tend to think. What you just said. And doubt destroys the phenomena, but that doesn't mean it's not real, it's just an intuitive-mind thing.

    I just also have a "skeptical angel" on my shoulder, to whom I assigned that position to prevent me from ever falling for a belief without sufficient proof. I had a friend for years that was so skeptical that he bordered on pathological, and I used to use him as a sounding board, not to convince him but to understand his mind set, and boy did I get it. He's my mental Cerberus, my guard dog against incursions by baseless fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  127. See, thing is, I don't see any problem with me always retaining a grain of skepticism as a "fallback" since I can overcome it enough to see these phenomena. It's like my virus-scan.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I used to be much more hard core skeptic than I am. Now I genuinely try to be as open as authentically possible. The sort of doubt that bothers me now tends to be more in the realm of self-doubt...can **I** really believe enough, can this outcome really happen to **ME** etc. And this seems a big challenge. Also, a long history of sad thinking and doubtful thinking seems to have left "toxins" in my mental system...or at the very least grooves in my subconscious that are difficult to develop new growth over...or to form new, more positive grooves. This seems to be like a constant battle. There's a kind of negative feedback loop, where I really need something kind of astonishing, or astonishingly positive to happen to me, in order to 'reset' those grooves, but trying to maintain an abstract hope in the absence of that, causes this self-doubting to surface, and perhaps is even gouging the original grooves deeper. Truly sustaining a positive mood (day by day, week by week) for any "work" is also very challenging. It's like a constant sort of vigilance is required...which itself may be drawing too much attention to the problem. Do you know what I mean by all this?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Yes, I do, and I don't let my skepticism get in the way of belief when I need to believe in order to get results that I can later be skeptical about. Although of course, if I had not doubts at all, it might be better for results purposes, but I don't want to go that far yet.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I find that the reason that they say in magic to craft your "spell" or talisman or whatever, do your ritual, and then forget that you ever did it, is because if you can really commit to a belief and let it no longer dominate your mind afterwards you won't be spending time trying to constantly reinforce your intention due to doubts creeping in. It's a matter of learning to let go of it, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Hi Saint Brian,

    I found some interesting posts on some of the common phenomena experienced in the Salvia states, worth a read:

    The Salvia Gravity Phenomenon:

    http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27305

    The Curious Case Of Sentient Inanimate Objects:

    http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27307

    Salvia Lego Family:

    http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27262

    ReplyDelete
  132. Thank you so much! I'll respond again after I've read them.

    ReplyDelete
  133. You might also want to check out Stuart Mason's book, and J.D Arthur's book. Stuart (tvsuat) always sees a wheel and a being "rolling our reality." Arthur almost always seems to have seeming contact with the dead.

    ReplyDelete
  134. "So what's the significance of a humorous thought? ...As thoughts go, it's stronger than normal thinking, more strongly imagined in the mind..."

    These kinds of 'stronger' thoughts are also techniques used for better memory retention, like long lists, names of new people you meet, etc. You create a connection of the thing to be remembered to a very visual, graphic, funny, sexual, or otherwise over-the-top image or scenery. This creates a much stronger connection, thus enabling one to remember the list/name/etc.

    Brian, are you familiar with 5MEO-DMT? I haven't had a chance to explore with it (yet), but have read and studied others who have for many years. 5MEO and Salvia seem like the two strongest substances out there, and the top substances to be used when trying to understand reality. 5MEO is commonly referred to as the 'God Molecule' as it has the ability to blast through your ego and to the white-out 'all is one' space. It might be the one substance qualitatively stronger than Salvia. Note - this is different from standard DMT - which is not as strong. I do have considerable experience with that molecule...and I consider Salvia and DMT similar in qualitative strength, but Salvia is a bit stronger IME.

    The person I've listened to the most, who has *extensive* experience, is named Martin Ball. He has several pod-casts describing his experiences and a few books as well. In general, his take is that everything is fractal energy. If you had an opportunity to add the knowledge you could gain from that substance to your knowledge from Salvia...well...maybe a lot of your suspicions would be confirmed or you could answer a lot of your questions :-)

    http://www.martinball.net/

    Go to his 'Entheogen books' tab and scroll down the summary of the book 'Being Human'. This is his book detailing his findings and his 'grand unified theory'. He is completely anti-metaphysical fluff, claiming most stuff is 'egoic-based fantasy projection'.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Thank you. Yes, heard of it. Also read Rick Strassman's book on DMT. While I've never had any, from the many things I've read about it I've come to think of salvia as DMT's "dark sister."

    I'd love to try it, and also LSD and 'Shrooms, but never had the opportunity plus they're so illegal. Where I live, salvia is legal.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I'll check out Martin Ball, btw. Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete