L.U.E. - An Anarchaotistic View

Psychonautics
Or, "Life, before and after and outside the preconceived notions of life."

An Epiphenominalistic Thought-Form Is Born
While it remains to be seen how the human mind processes information over time, I still gain a great deal of pleasure from the occasional epiphany, though I understand next to nothing of how they come to be. I am aware of several different thought processes coursing through my conscious mind, and even a few of my unconscious mind, yet when they begin to arrange themselves into a coherent image, I choose to enjoy the moment of revelation before looking into the "why". An oddity, for my personality, as I look into the "why" of anything and everything. But when it comes to why I choose to enjoy the moment only when it comes to epiphanies, the only answer I can find is "why not?"

On a daily basis, I am asked a certain question. We are all asked this question from time to time by people who know us or know of us. In some cases it's used as a greeting, without a particular care as to what the answer is, unless it catches them off guard. The certain question in question is, "Hi! How are you today?"
For the most part, the expected answer runs a few words, in my observations of others. Simple sentences such as, "Fine, and you?" or "Pretty good" or "Not so well."
None of these answers do justice to the meaning behind the original question, at least linguistically. The intentions of the questioner could be conditioned habit, or a genuine interest, neither of which is my place to assume until I have highly advanced psychic powers of the mind. Which I am working on.
Seeing as how I have no absolute idea what spirit the question was asked in, I have a tendency to be as well-rounded and detail-oriented as possible when answering. In this way, I have not only gotten across the likelihood of a person to wish being in close proximity with me, as well as my current mental state, and what directions my thoughts are traveling at the moment.
So when I am asked the question, "How are you today?" I respond honestly.
"Relatively tolerable at the moment, with an inclination toward a more positive attitude in an hours time, due to a project I am currently working on. How about yourself?"
I sound like a damn weather report, save the finishing move, "Back to you, Jim"
This has caused a majority of those who have close contact with me to ask another question, "Don't you ever get tired of thinking so hard about everything?". And for once, I can answer with a single word.
"No."
Everything is of interest to me in one degree or another. If I were to stop thinking so much about the nature of the world around me, I would become rather depressed and stagnant, and would not be actively participating in my own personal evolution. Some have accepted the way I think and ask questions to better understand it. Others have completely given up trying to understand, and just watch me in awe. Some are merely irritated that I give complex answers when they wanted something concise and simple. And a small minority assume that I know an awful lot of nothing that is of any consequence, and ignore almost everything that comes out of my mouth. All very valid positions, considering the infinite perspectives that can exist between two people in any given conversation.

I was struck recently, with an epiphany so very vastly large in it's implications, that I chose to ignore everything around me and write a synopsis down, so that it would not be lost forever to the ether of unconscious thinking. It meant enough to me in that slight moment of understanding, that I attached a mental string to it, not to be lost. Writing down a few short sentences of description, I solidified it within my conscious mind as a beacon, so that I might let my unconscious mind work on it while I went about my day. As it turned out, I didn't actually get back to actively thinking about it for two days, but on the third day it rose in fulfillment of my expectations and I began to process the implications.

I think I have found a way to prove that there is a life after the physical death of our human bodies. Perhaps even life before the physical birth. Now for a cliffhanger.

Before I get into that, an example of how my thought process works. I must comment on the biases that I observe in myself during such a revelation in my mind, as well as how I go about the research needed to round out my conclusion. I usually think I am "right", at least right enough for my personal consumption. This proves difficult when attempting to explain the validation of ideas to a person outside of myself. That is when the serious writing and thinking begins, as I must not only adjust my vernacular to appeal to a more generalized and vast audience, but I cannot sacrifice the details that make up my point. To sacrifice the details is to create something that more closely resembles a religion or a cult, than a really good idea.
The problem with this is that I must admit I use a more "religious" order of thinking up to a point, in the sense that I start with an idea, and then look for ways to validate my way of thinking. Unlike most religious orders, I work hard to make sure that I am capable of being "wrong", in the event that further research implies that.
For example, the Catholic church has come out and admitted that belief in extraterrestrials and space aliens is sanctioned by the Vatican, as other beings in the universe would have the same "God" with a capital "G" as we do.



What I find interesting in this statement of position is that it elevates Scientology up to the religious level of Catholicism, or lowers Catholic beliefs to Scientology levels, where they worship an alien overlord who presides over multiple alien species. This is not a position, nor a conflict of interest, that I wish to place my ideas into. Ideas "thrown into the ring" between both of these belief systems, is not my aim. Rather to make my ideas most applicable to the larger scheme of things, or a final zenith of all things. This proves difficult, but is required of myself if I am to remain intellectually honest with myself and others.
It is in this way that I do find the "scientific method" to be most useful, in that I see where my research takes me, and let my intellectual honesty allow for the possibility that I'm barking up the wrong tree. "Making mountains out of molehills" is a phrase that comes to mind, as I have been guilty of this type of thinking before, and recognize it as being a possibility as I proceed down any path I can imagine.
Thanks a lot, Pareidolia.





There are some around me that are aware of my fascination with a particular molecule that has baffled molecular biologists and neural chemists around the world in the past. A great deal of progress has been made in the study of this particular molecule over the past few decades, through special government sanctioned permissions, but the information gleaned from this doesn't easily escape into public knowledge because of its very nature. Since the Nixon administration oddly enough, and the birth of the so called "War against Drugs", this molecule has been classified as a Schedule One drug which is considered the most illegal. However, its illegality does not directly translate into it being a dangerous substance, as this molecule exists inside of all living things on the planet. The molecule exists in all plant, all animals, and inside the human brain. It is part of our very nature, and without it we go insane and die. Yet, it is illegal, making everyone on the planet guilty of possessing it. This includes, ironically, any President or Drug Czar that works for them.
The name of this molecule is Dimethyltryptamine, and it resides in the Pineal gland in the very center of the human brain. It activates naturally in three points of a human life. When we are being born, when we are in deep REM sleep, and when our physical bodies are dying. The implications of this are absurdly vast in and of itself, and what we do know about it already is not even a fraction of what has been theorized about the molecule.
It is very strongly hypothesized that Dimethyltryptamine, also known as DMT, is the molecule that allows us to dream each night. At the very least, it is released in the human brain in large quantities while dreaming. It is also strongly hypothesized that it is the cause of so-called "spiritual" experiences.
DMT is categorized as a potent, fast-acting psychedelic, and has made up the basis of many "magical" brews used by ancient shamanic and tribal cultures around the world. At the very least, this shows that DMT is an integral ingredient for where human culture emerged from, and should be studied more vastly. Studied by anthropologists and archeologists, to say nothing of the modern scientific community as a whole. Yet it has been ostracized and shunned from modern thought because it is a psychedelic, rather than in spite of this fact. Ignorance of the fact that psychedelics exist in various forms in the human brain all the time, makes shunning a testable molecule even more ridiculous. To say nothing of outlawing a component of human brain chemistry.
Our drug-phobic culture has been conditioned to demonize the very substances that allow us a potential for a further understanding of ourselves, and only very recently has this psychological "iron curtain " been pulled back a few inches for a peek of what is behind it, only to be shut again before any questions can be answered. A metaphorical slap on the wrist keeps the Pavlovian dog conditioned inside all of us from exploring further.

"One cannot help but ponder the strange dichotomy that the nation based on establishing individual freedom has now outlawed every substance which might aid in the the exploration of that last and most important frontier, the human mind. Alexander Shulgin, world renowned chemist in the field of psychoactive drugs is quoted in a recent periodical: 'Our generation is the first ever to have made the search for self-awareness a crime' "
-Myron Stolaroff

In scientific material reductionist circles, it is commonly assumed that nature is a cold and unfeeling aspect inherent in all things. That the universe cares nothing for us as a species, this material world is all there is, and there is no such thing as an afterlife. To say nothing of a before-life. There is no creator of any kind, or there would be evidence. This leads to the assumption on the part of some atheists, that absolutely nothing happens when we die, that there is just a void and we cease to exist. The idea that we came from nothing, our thoughts are just random chemical reactions that exist only to keep us alive as long as possible, and we return to nothing. This leads some to believe that there is absolutely no point to life, and anything we do is inherently meaningless. A very nihilistic perspective ensues, and they cease to be invited to the really life-validating and affirming parties, unless they can hold back their opinions for a few hours. In this way, it could be that in order to have a good time, these perspectives must take a back seat to the pursuit of belonging to a particular group for the sake of fun. But scientifically, it must be realized that there is no point in having fun, other than to propagate certain endorphins in the brain, which make an individual want to continue living. But there is no other scientific explanation for why this is important, other than to keep an individual alive.
The problem here is that if there is no point in living other than self-propigation, why do we try to have fun at all? What is the point of life, if the conclusion science has reached is that there is no point? Why do we exist at all, if there is no point in existing? These unexplainable questions go around in circles until they are picked up by philosophy, and abandoned by the general scientific "experts". There are many scientists who do pursue these answers, and find very rewarding potentials for answers, but they are not generally recognized by the scientific community as a whole.
The point of interest that I stumbled upon was that of the idea of a "cold and unfeeling universe", which comes close to the phrase of a "dog eat dog world", neither of which do I necessarily believe in. If you want it to be the case, then sure, you can make it that way. It's possible, I must admit a great deal of things are possible, but I find that particular perspective unrealistic in my life experiences thus far. An absence of evidence being the reasoning behind a lack of investigation is the most un-scientific reason to ignore an idea I have ever heard of.



To be fair, there is once again a budding scientific interest in hallucinogens and their potential application in treating certain neurological conditions. The proverbial cat, it seems, is out of the bag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/12psychedelics.html?sudsredirect=true

Psychonautics
In pre-industrial times, a sailor took their life into their own hands they pursued the romanticized exploration of that which they did not know. Traveling to ports and harbors in different countries and nation-states, they grew aware of the differences of other people in other lands, and their old myopic perspectives would change. They could not any more unlearn what they grew to know, than they could mitigate the risks involved in stepping onto a ship in the first place. There is a risk in any type of exploration. Risk of pain, injury, or even death. Yet they continued to take those risks as they came, some for money, perceived freedom, or for the sake of adventure into the unknown.
A "Psychonaut", in Greek, refers to a sailor of the human mind. It entails people who explore the unknown aspects of the human mind, and alter their perspectives in search of higher personal truths, through various means. Some would explore the dream realm, others the mental effects of various types of yoga. There are and were those who would ingest tribal hallucinogens in search of spirits and deities and unconscious beings of the imagination.
It seems quite evident at this point, that these early influences into tribal psychology affected the psychology of human kind over the centuries. So to ignore these methods of mental exploration is to ignore where human kind came from, and without knowing where we came from, how can we steer the ship toward a favorable future?