Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by MiserereNobis

  1. I don't have experience with ketamine, so I can't speak directly to how it works. My strongest experience was with DMT, but I didn't have a bad trip. I "sat up" (participated) in a couple of Native American Church peyote ceremonies. I didn't have a difficult time there, but I think that was due to the setting. It was a complete religious ceremony with all details having spiritual significance. It honestly never felt like I was "tripping" and my first time when the ceremony ended at dawn and we stepped out of the teepee I was surprised at how "high" I was. It was all perfectly "normal" in the teepee during the ceremony, if that makes sense. My most difficult trips were on high doses of psilocybin mushrooms. While LSD can be strong, I always felt like I could control it more. I could direct it where I wanted it to go. With mushrooms, however, I feel like the organic component asserts itself. On high doses I couldn't control it. My biggest tool for not spiraling out is actually kind of cliche. I would let go. Instead of fighting the feelings, the fear, the disturbing visuals, I would give in to them. I would let my eyes go out of focus and in my mind embrace, usually actually visualizing hugging whatever negative thing was happening. Sometimes I would say out loud, "I love you." Sometimes I would focus on my reactions to what was happening more than what was happening. I think I picked this up from my Buddhist time when I practiced mindfulness meditation. This is what fear feels like. This is how fear affects my mind and body, etc. This created space between my awareness and whatever difficult thing was happening. Sometimes the bad experience was good because it would point my attention, unflinchingly, at some aspect of myself that needed examining, but that I didn't want to look at. That is different, though, then the type of experience you described on ketamine. And sometimes nothing worked and the mushrooms just had their way with me, and the learning was done afterwards, reflecting on the experience. When reflecting, I wouldn't just blame it on some chemical, but I would try to see how my reactions, thoughts, etc., caused difficulty. For those reading and wondering how in the world did we get to a discussion of psychedelics (ha!), I just want to reiterate that my time with psychedelic spirituality was NOT about partying. It was about exploring the mind and mysticism. I never thought of myself as "taking drugs." I would usually wander alone in the vast desert behind my house at the time, seeking spirit and understanding. It was a very important part of my journey to God.
  2. Sweet mother of god, not the Rorty video!!! Not those German subtitles again!!!! AHHHHH!!!! (ok, ok, now I'm using the tools I learned from bad psychedelic trips)
  3. Timothy Leary famously taught that the key to a positive psychedelic experience is set and setting. Setting is the environment you are in, and set is your mental state. Sounds like the Daybell story threw off your set In my psychedelic spirituality days, I found that "bad trips" (like the hour of terror you experienced) were actually very useful. They taught me how my mind functions when things go negative. Working through those bad trips gave me tools that I use even now when my mind goes in a negative direction. I guess it's kinda like meditation in that way.
  4. Do you read anything that's not blatantly right wing? I mean... Breitbart as a source? Really? I suppose NY Post is least partisan from your list there, but that's not really saying much. I'm rather disappointed in your lack of objective reading.
  5. I'm jumping in, ha. Why is the price of gas/diesel relevant? Can you please justify societal/political events based on money? I'm Catholic, but of course I'm open to the LDS view. For LDS, should we make political choices and judge situations based on something like the cost of gas? Or our retirement funds? I've got some biblical quotes ready at hand, fyi, as well as Catholic saints. I'll probably not employ them, but I'm just saying... money might not be the best argument here, in a religious Christian forum.
  6. Thanks for providing more evidence that your argumentation here is terrible Seriously, bring your lawyer skills. Since you are Lawyer of the Year, you should be able to do better than your one-liners, throw-away insults, vast generalizations based on personal anecdotal evidence, and now your appeals to authority. I could be 100% libertarian and still think your arguments are terrible. It's not about what you are trying to persuade, but how you are doing it.
  7. I'm not disagreeing with your philosophy. My post was not about the topic, but the arguments. I'm saying you aren't making real arguments here at all. Congrats! Why don't you bring the argumentation skills you use as a lawyer into the discussion here? Surely you can see that if you argued in a court the way you argue here you wouldn't be "Lawyer of the Year" yes? Because here you aren't giving arguments -- you're giving broad generalizations without specific evidence. As Lawyer of the Year, you realize that arguments of that type are terrible, yes? Just to be clear, I'm not talking about libertarianism, so responding to this paragraph would be following that smokey red herring, which I'm not going to do. I'm talking about the way you argue here. I didn't insult the type of lawyer you are. Reread my post. I said bring lawyer Bob into the discussion forum. Argue here like you argue as a lawyer. It'll be much more effective.
  8. There must be a vast difference between Bob the lawyer and Bob the poster if he is at all a successful lawyer. His "arguments" here are nothing but vague and general assertions without evidence ("all public employees are lazy because I've seen it!" doesn't count as evidence -- you know that, lawyer Bob, right?) If I were researching a law firm to hire and came across Bob's posts here, I would immediately scratch him off the list. C'mon, Bob, why don't you bring in your lawyer self? Give reasoned arguments with evidence and sources. Take a look at @smac97 posts for some guidance. While I think he overdoes it sometimes, at least you can tell he's a lawyer and is trying to use arguments and evidence.
  9. And psychedelics in "normal" doses should also not be considered hard drugs.
  10. This is an interesting case of different realities for different political persuasions. Interesting social psychology indeed! In my "reality" (my world and friends), the only fear people have expressed is if the underdog loses and his followers and militias take to the streets. It's the exact opposite of what you are experiencing. Maybe you are right... TRVTH is relative to the mind that beholds it In any case, both political sides have created scenarios in their minds where a loss isn't a legitimate loss, but is somehow due to fraud or whatever. This is a sad. It's going to be a mess almost no matter what. I hope that whoever wins wins decisively, whoever that is, to make the mess less messy. Now, since I'm not LDS, I have stocked up on the Scotch of my choice (well, two really: Laphroig and Lagavulin 16). I'm ready to ride out the end of the world with a peaty smile!
  11. The Vatican has clarified this situation by sending a letter to all papal nuncios (think of a nuncio as an ambassador to governments). From this CNN article: It's seem a bit nefarious to edit the Pope in this manner. The filmmaker also lied about interviewing the Pope: Here's the clarification concerning civil unions: They are trying to separate a secular legal union from a sacramental marriage. Is it slippery slope rationalizations? Here's the clarifications about homosexuals having a right to a family: I wish the Vatican had clarified this immediately and publicly after the documentary premiered, instead of waiting until now and only through sending a letter to the apostolic nuncios. It seems a bit like trying to eat your cake and have it, too.
  12. I feel like pro-Trump people and anti-Trump people inhabit two completely different realities. Each seems so incomprehensible to the other. It's quite a phenomenon. As is the amount of time this thread has remained unlocked. The mods must all be enjoying happy hour somewhere! (or whatever the LDS equivalent would be... root beer?)
  13. It's tough times for sure. I wonder if there is something similar in LDS times? Maybe when polygamy was abrogated? Did more "traditional" LDS have a hard time accepting the end of polygamy since it seemed so foundational during Brigham Young's time?
  14. Jared Livesey is angling to replace @Bernard Gui as the board's resident inquisitor...
  15. Hi Rory, Thanks for your responses, as always. I think in these difficult times the Lord will forgive us, as you say, for agnosticism. I think the key is what you say -- to behave as if he were pope, and I'll add to revere the office. I visited the Fisheaters forum to see what was going on there with this latest twist and was deeply saddened to see many ostensibly faithful and traditional Catholics wishing for the death of Francis, and others saying they no longer pray for him. It was surreal, honestly, and shows the problematic relationship that traditional Catholicism has with the papacy, when the papacy is so foundational to Catholicism. Without the papacy what are we? High church Anglicans? I also find it problematic that Catholics are using private judgement to determine questions involving the papacy. That is so... protestant. I want to be clear that I am speaking in general principles here. I am not judging you or anyone personally for agnosticism on the issue. You may well be right and I may well be wrong. I just have a hard time feeling like God will pass judgement on those who stay with the papacy. I bet this whole discussion is surprising to our LDS friends here. Catholics questioning the papacy?? Well, that's one of the things that makes this board unique -- two traditional Catholics on an LDS forum, ha. Speaking of Fisheaters, I have a lovely grilled salmon dinner planned for today + PAX + Jesse
  • Create New...