no, the fucking whole hippie counter-culture shit was so flawed, its not even a fucking philosophy its a fantasy they made up...oh let's all live happily ever after, share our food, clothes, house, shit... that will never work, people are assholes and they will always be, it is our nature to NOT share things...thats why hippies beliefs suck because it will just never happen

no, the fucking whole hippie counter-culture shit was so flawed, its not even a fucking philosophy its a fantasy they made up...oh let's all live happily ever after, share our food, clothes, house, shit... that will never work, people are assholes and they will always be, it is our nature to NOT share things...thats why hippies beliefs suck because it will just never happen

maybe you should go read a book, then come back and contribute. it seems you have a very shallow understanding of what exactly happened in sf in the 60's, and why it was not sustainable. i don't think people are inherently evil, the fact that we have to constantly struggle for survival makes us evil. that's just not something we should deal with in a world like ours- we have the understanding to eliminate hunger but we're too busy being oppressed by the all mighty dollar. i know it's hard to see, but thats exactly what it is. even though i do not agree with capitalism-- trying to overhaul the entire planets monetary system isn't the best way to go about it, our infrastructures depend on it. without capitalism the hippies wouldn't have a 'free store'-in that sense the logic was very flawed. i think that comes much later. instead people need to understand 'all that glitters is not gold'. i feel most of our problems come from a lack of understanding ourselves. people need to open their eyes up to what is real, then we'll be able to sustain communism, then we'll be able to eliminate wars, hunger, oppression, and so on. the majority of people on this planet are too busy worrying about capital, instead of really investing some time in themselves. and that- i think- is where it should start. from within. everyone needs to really, truly, find what is important to them. do you think most people would say that slaving over getting paid is what really makes them tick? psychedelics could be a catalyst under the proper circumstances, as they were in the 60s- but i don't think we were intended to ingest something and gain enlightenment.

before you go calling me a hippie, or whatever the fuck, you should read about maslow's hierarchy of needs. the only way to reach enlightenment is to satisfy these needs-thats not something the majority of the world is capable of because they just don't have the resources. i think as people in the 1st world it's our duty to purse enlightenment, instead of being blinded by the dollar. but people are too damn blind, thats why they spend their lives slaving over work, or school, or whatever. these are all human constructs, and though they give us a more of a comfortable life, they are not all that there is. did nature intend for us to worry about rent, or to enjoy this ridiculously beautiful planet? think about it....we're slaves in heaven.

No comment

no, the fucking whole hippie counter-culture shit was so flawed, its not even a fucking philosophy its a fantasy they made up...oh let's all live happily ever after, share our food, clothes, house, shit... that will never work, people are assholes and they will always be, it is our nature to NOT share things...thats why hippies beliefs suck because it will just never happen

Not with that attitude. But seriously the hippies where more than about just that. Though there certainly where dewey eyed young hippies that thought that way, most of them bummed around california for a few weeks and left when their parents money ran out.

I'd say the real revolutionaries of the hippies movement where people like Keasy and Neal Cassaddy and to a lesser extent Jack Kerouac who inspired the beat movement.

I don't think pscyhadelics... or any drug for that matter started anything. The revolutions and ideas started with people and the drugs helped feed the flames of these ideas.

Drugs are always going to be intertwined with these movement because of their underground nature. If you're considered an outcast by society you're going to do things that are considered "wrong"

^ thats a good point. the drugs will always be there because thats just another way to rebel against the powers that be. just another way to 'stick it to the man'

This is what I'm trying to say...We haven't had a counter culture movement of profound impact since the 60s...The reason (IMO) is because psychedelic drugs...So yes, Leary did better mankind. He inspired a movement for social justice and freedom by releasing LSD on the nation...

Granted, that very same action may have prevented LSD from being used for legitimate psychological therapy, which has been shown to be extremely effective. However, Leary's antics spurred a cultural revolution that actually did make a difference, as opposed to anything in the past 30 some years...You really think that if he didn't do that the government would have allowed LSD to be legal anyway? Fuck no. The second that stuff hit the streets (which it would have regardless of Leary) the government would have banned it in a second...The same reason why Salvia is about to become illegal everywhere, the same reason why shrooms are now illegal in Amsterdam

The government doesn't ban these things because there dangerous, if that was the case alcohol and cigarettes would be up there with heroin...The government bans psychedelics because the people who use psychedelics tend to stir shit up and what do you think inspired them to speak out so heavily?


How you can condemn anyone for standing up against oppression is beyond me...

Then why is heroin, cocaine, meth and PCP banned? You are stupid as fuck. There is no conspiracy. Some dumb fuck politicians thought that drugs were bad for people and they could tell people what to do.

IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

Then why is heroin, cocaine, meth and PCP banned? You are stupid as fuck. There is no conspiracy. Some dumb fuck politicians thought that drugs were bad for people and they could tell people what to do.

IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.



Yes, but what made the government go out of their way to claim psychedelic drug use "a threat to the state of the nation" was the social effects...Not the health effects.

The government made the drugs you listed above illegal b.c. mass addiction and death was plaguing the country. The government made psychedelics illegal obviously for a different reason since none of that happened when people took acid, mushrooms and weed.

They may have claimed on paper and even in word to the public that it was a "health threat"..They even believed in it...But that clearly wasn't the primary motive since thousands weren't being sent the grave...

The government didn't like what psychedelics did to institutional cultural values. Some people used them dangerously and that gave the government an excuse to ban them


Bush did believe Iraq had WMDs...However, it was only because he convinced himself. His unconscious motive was clearly something else...

I don't think pscyhadelics... or any drug for that matter started anything. The revolutions and ideas started with people and the drugs helped feed the flames of these ideas.

Drugs are always going to be intertwined with these movement because of their underground nature. If you're considered an outcast by society you're going to do things that are considered "wrong"

See, I understand that perspective...However, it is incredibly difficult to break people out of their dogmatism without psychedelics...

I find it hard to believe its merely a coincidence that the only true counter-culture movement (meaning one with a profound influence on everyones life) occurred when psychedelics were legal and since the ban on psychedelics....nothing....

The attitude of every counter culture is the same but the values are different. Drugs IMO are the catalyst

Yes, but what made the government go out of their way to claim psychedelic drug use "a threat to the state of the nation" was the social effects...Not the health effects.

The government made the drugs you listed above illegal b.c. mass addiction and death was plaguing the country. The government made psychedelics illegal obviously for a different reason since none of that happened when people took acid, mushrooms and weed.

They may have claimed on paper and even in word to the public that it was a "health threat"..They even believed in it...But that clearly wasn't the primary motive since thousands weren't being sent the grave...

The government didn't like what psychedelics did to institutional cultural values. Some people used them dangerously and that gave the government an excuse to ban them


Bush did believe Iraq had WMDs...However, it was only because he convinced himself. His unconscious motive was clearly something else...


word.

there is no comparison between drugs that are physically and mentally addictive--to drugs that heal and are actually the opposite of addictive

thesis, antithesis...synthesis

rinse and repeat every few decades

-spl1ff

god damn people trying to make a change in society!

there's nothing to change about it

just leave it

yeah.....other than the fact that the global monetary system is collapsing... and the fact that you're a fucking blind slave. it's all good.

An intelligent psychonaught takes what he learns, applies it to HIS life and makes him self a better person, and hence of course others are affected, but it's much more subtle.

This /\

I can understand that...However, I would say screaming it from the roof top (which I've been doing) is more of a reflection of the ignorance of other people and their inability to think critically.

Do that all you want, you can try and try to promote and justify the use of psychadelics in the name of self improvement, world equality/peace, enlightenment for all bullshit and such but the majority of people are just going to think you are a druggy looser.

maybe you should go read a book, then come back and contribute. it seems you have a very shallow understanding of what exactly happened in sf in the 60's, and why it was not sustainable. i don't think people are inherently evil, the fact that we have to constantly struggle for survival makes us evil. that's just not something we should deal with in a world like ours- we have the understanding to eliminate hunger but we're too busy being oppressed by the all mighty dollar. i know it's hard to see, but thats exactly what it is. even though i do not agree with capitalism-- trying to overhaul the entire planets monetary system isn't the best way to go about it, our infrastructures depend on it. without capitalism the hippies wouldn't have a 'free store'-in that sense the logic was very flawed. i think that comes much later. instead people need to understand 'all that glitters is not gold'. i feel most of our problems come from a lack of understanding ourselves. people need to open their eyes up to what is real, then we'll be able to sustain communism, then we'll be able to eliminate wars, hunger, oppression, and so on.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? We're in economic trouble because "we don't understand ourselves"? And what makes you think communism is going to eliminate wars, hunger, oppression, and all that other great stuff? I understand myself well enough to know no matter how much I have, I want something more, and communism would make that tough. I have no reason to assume you're not the same way. I assume you have ambitions and goals, otherwise you're kind of pathetic. Don't you want your hard work to pay off? Don't you want to be rewarded for the skills you've taken time and money to develop? If you work harder than the other guy, why shouldn't you be more successful? You worked for it! Mankind will not lose its ambition because it takes some acid, and that's a very good thing.

the majority of people on this planet are too busy worrying about capital, instead of really investing some time in themselves. and that- i think- is where it should start. from within. everyone needs to really, truly, find what is important to them. do you think most people would say that slaving over getting paid is what really makes them tick? psychedelics could be a catalyst under the proper circumstances, as they were in the 60s- but i don't think we were intended to ingest something and gain enlightenment.

I'm in full support of finding what's important to you--I think that's a big part of living. However, realizing what's important to you and slaving for a pay check are not mutually exclusive at all. For most people, what's important to them costs money. Hobbies or interests, family, charity; it all takes money, and that didn't change in the '60s, and it won't change anytime soon, not should it. If you didn't have to pay for stuff, nobody would sell it. And your last sentence, "psychedelics could be a catalyst--but they couldn't"
Mind explaining?

before you go calling me a hippie, or whatever the fuck, you should read about maslow's hierarchy of needs. the only way to reach enlightenment is to satisfy these needs-thats not something the majority of the world is capable of because they just don't have the resources. i think as people in the 1st world it's our duty to purse enlightenment, instead of being blinded by the dollar. but people are too damn blind, thats why they spend their lives slaving over work, or school, or whatever. these are all human constructs, and though they give us a more of a comfortable life, they are not all that there is. did nature intend for us to worry about rent, or to enjoy this ridiculously beautiful planet? think about it....we're slaves in heaven.

First, I learned all about Maslow's hierarchy in a psychology class I took a couple years ago. Here's what I can tell you: Maslow's hierarchy of needs is just a theory, and a pathetic one at that. It's just another attempt from the great "science" of psychology to link all of humanity into one ultra-broad generalization. Even Maslow agreed it was seriously flawed. The fact is, people are different, and generalizations like that just don't work. Which all leads up to why the science of psychology is the greatest fraud of the 20th century. "Science" is made of rules. You make theories and you prove them. Psychology is made of speculations and loose-fitting concepts that only work or apply some of the time. It's bullshit. Fun to think about, but you sound like a fool when you present it as fact.

Secondly, a lot of people wouldn't be content to just sit back and enjoy the planet. We have a great planet with some REAL and DESPERATE problems, and relaxing and living a simple life won't do shit. We have starving PEOPLE all over the globe, the planet is warming, the animals are dying, the economy is in crisis, and etc. Doesn't WORKING to help people and fix those problems sound more enlightening and self-educational than sitting on your ass admiring your backyard?

Pardon me for going off like this, but it makes me fucking CRAZY when stupid stoner kids say drugs, communism, and "understanding yourself" will fix anything. Money isn't all about making yourself happy and comfortable, and neither is life. If that's what you think, then you don't understand money understand money and you're headed for a serious midlife crisis a couple decades from now. A life like that is meaningless and ultimately you'll find it unfulfilling. You'll be happier if you keep slaving in school, find a job you like, and do your part to improve the world.

[/speed]

i have 5% left on my laptops battery and my charger doesn't work, so i'll come back to this when it does... needless to say i disagree, this 5% won't give me enough time to back myself up. but i have to ask you, is a starving man going ever develop to his full potential? would the world be this fucked if it wasn't for the emphasis we put on human constructs (work)? most people in hitech majors end up sitting in cubes, and no matter how much they liked school end up hating the monotony. i might not have the answers, i'll admit, i'm still trying to learn myself. but i'm sure you aren't right either.

What are you saying about starving men? That we should let them starve or that we should feed them? It may well be that he never reaches his potential, but you can fulfill your potential by helping him with some food or money. You and I, and the rest of America, have, as fortunate people (in comparison to the world), a moral obligation to help other people out of the hole they're in. I'm not trying to force obligations on you now; helping out could be giving to charity, giving to beggars, or even supporting foreign economies by buying their stuff, but if you do nothing but support yourself, and contribute nothing, then you're a drain on the planet no matter how enlightened you are. Life isn't always rosy and great. The world isn't perfect. Acting like there's nothing wrong so you can live a pleasurable and comfortable life is lying to yourself and damaging to others.

Would I be wrong to believe that what truly creates a counterculture movement are psychedelic drugs?...

You would be. 'n you yourself said why.

I mean, it seems to me its the easiest way to set someone free from societal interference and oppression...

^^ this. The easiest way is not itself the only way. 'n incidentally, while I'm very much an advocate of foisting mass psychedelics on an unhealthily-stagnated planet, to degrees which get me funny looks among even the most diehard of &totse and non-&totse BLTCers, the easiest way isn't actually even the best way.

I'd still call it a good second, though. 'n there's nothing that says that one can only take one means at once.

I could write legions on the hows and whys of consciousness. In theory. In practice, I ain't gonna, 'cause it's not that I'd have to write a huge fucking book, it's that I'd have to write too many books.

The first book, though, can be summed up very simply. "It's not the molecules, man - it's the receptors." 'n that'd probably end up being two or three volumes, all in all, though dummy gave a hint on one of the major places to look in post #22. There are lots and lots of other places to look that are sort of related, in a vague "all fields tie together, and we're still in the same field" sort of sense. What exactly plugs into those receptors ain't gonna do shit. It's the receptors themselves that get turned on, and that's what does all the work.

The second book could probably be summed up with "get your mind right," or somesuch. Did you know that most higher mammals, at least, have entire bodies of neurons devoted to seeing if they can fit someone else's trip into their own headspace (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=154108)?

I mean... seriously. do you really think a flaming faggot - babyfaggot at that - could avoid senseless violence outside LT/BLTC without something going on? The answer is "yes," simply because not everyone is unhealthy and warlike, but that's not the point. Free your mind, and the rest will follow. Move your mind, and you move the world. 'n if you actually manage to figure out a better way, people will actually look at what you have to say and say "holy shit, that would be a clearer philosophy."

It's easy as shit to rail against that which is wrong in the world. The question is... can you think up something better to fill the vacum to replace it? If so, just do it, just be it, and people will decide for themselves if you're doing any better. Everyone wants to cast off that which is sucking them down, but if they don't have anything to do, they're not going to do anything. Who the hell would want to leave if you don't even have an idea of where you want to go?

I avoid a lot of shit outside the forums which have an interest in chem and molbio simply by embodying a world in which dividing the world into "us" and "them" is not even possible - where it's impossible to look at an 'other' as anything but another instance of one's self, living its own life and walking its own path just like you. A couple other things as well - healing one's self from a toxic culture is to heal the ones around you, seeing as all is well because all is one - but laying down the poisoned root of man's inhumanity towards man is one of the bits which most directly applies. 'n because of them thar neurons mentioned above, anyone who's even remotly close to that headspace responds with "yeah, I remember that shit, that's the vibe I've been trippin' on." Vaguely messianic, but by no means in any sort of "special" way, just humble idiots doing the best they can with what little they know. That's all these humans have got, and it's not really all that bad, all in all.

Be the change you want to see in the world. 'cause no one's going to join you in adressing the problem if ya ain't got what fully amounts to some solution. They heard ya before ya showed up, but they ain't got one either, bucko.

Those two are pretty much it. 'n while I'm seriously for the "utopic social change through randomized mass-dosing of the populace, don't be too terribly surprised if while turning everyone on and telling them to stumble blindly around in the darkness hoping to find something is infinitely better than the paradigm of "never question anything at all," if maybe it doesn't tend to get outstripped by building one's life, one's culture, one's actions, and one's media around the receptor headspace in question and inviting all the people to come together in this to envision solutions rather than building anxiety by focusing on problems.

Funny thing about that, too. One of maslow's not-formally-published hypotheoses was that it requires great art for a person to attain self-actualization... 'n it's been discovered that the experience of trancendental beauty - just like trancendental religious experience, LSD and psilocybin, antianxiety, and prosocial behavior - all seem to revolve around the 5HT1A receptor.

Kind of amazing that someone stumbling around without knowledge of biology could come up with something in agreement with the hardware, isn't it? Kind of gives one hope for these poor, sorry, clueless human beings.

Just as a word... that which is not a better world has been studied as much or more than that which is, in so many ways, and on so many levels of operations. It's probably also worth studying, too. They're sort of a boolean system, and evil is sort of the opposite side of the coin. Avoid it, and you've found good; miss the root of good, and you've found evil. It's just two hardware systems in a tug-of-war, and while operations can switch back and forth without prejudice in some - pretty much everyone, even; Jesus and Gandhi are rare as fuck, and even Hitler wasn't a hitler - there's not really quite anything in the middle between the roots of either. To know one is to take pressure off the other in a world where everyone is a little of both.

Complete the beginnings of your search, and you'll be able to live it, which is the point at which everyone can look at you and decide if your life is better advice than what they were given. Until then, dose everyone you can - because they've got just as much of a chance of making it there as you.

If you really, really, really want to get into the hows and whys of how the whole system works, and what kinds of media can be used to build a better world, we could very, very slowly build a thread... but be warned, we probably aren't going to make it too many leagues past the basics, though those are pretty robust in their own right. &totse has a 12,000 char limit per post and a limit to the number of pages in a thread before crash, and to be frank, it's a lifetime's worth of study of someone who can learn entire scientific fields in a few hours.

But even the basics are pretty good...

If you really, really, really want to get into the hows and whys of how the whole system works, and what kinds of media can be used to build a better world, we could very, very slowly build a thread... but be warned, we probably aren't going to make it too many leagues past the basics, though those are pretty robust in their own right. &totse has a 12,000 char limit per post and a limit to the number of pages in a thread before crash, and to be frank, it's a lifetime's worth of study of someone who can learn entire scientific fields in a few hours.

But even the basics are pretty good...

Please, do. I'm also an admirer of yours, JoePedo, would you mind exchanging a few emails?

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? We're in economic trouble because "we don't understand ourselves"? And what makes you think communism is going to eliminate wars, hunger, oppression, and all that other great stuff? I understand myself well enough to know no matter how much I have, I want something more, and communism would make that tough. I have no reason to assume you're not the same way. I assume you have ambitions and goals, otherwise you're kind of pathetic. Don't you want your hard work to pay off? Don't you want to be rewarded for the skills you've taken time and money to develop? If you work harder than the other guy, why shouldn't you be more successful? You worked for it! Mankind will not lose its ambition because it takes some acid, and that's a very good thing.

communism wouldn't mean just one country changes. the whole world has to be in sync, just like capitalism. and there wouldn't be a need for borders. i'm just saying it would be nice, i understand that this wouldn't even be a goal for many generations. i don't feel like i need to put in that much to get paid well. i'm in the process of mastering a very respectable and high paying profession. but i see my peers slaving their asses off to be the best, so they could graduate and keep working their asses off. the money i'll be making will be enough to support a family and go all the things i think are worth doing in this life.

I'm in full support of finding what's important to you--I think that's a big part of living. However, realizing what's important to you and slaving for a pay check are not mutually exclusive at all. For most people, what's important to them costs money. Hobbies or interests, family, charity; it all takes money, and that didn't change in the '60s, and it won't change anytime soon, not should it. If you didn't have to pay for stuff, nobody would sell it. And your last sentence, "psychedelics could be a catalyst--but they couldn't"
Mind explaining?

do you mean this one?
psychedelics could be a catalyst under the proper circumstances, as they were in the 60s- but i don't think we were intended to ingest something and gain enlightenment.

see...i don't really think you understand what i wrote. if you really need my to interpret that for you, i'll be glad to do so.
First, I learned all about Maslow's hierarchy in a psychology class I took a couple years ago. Here's what I can tell you: Maslow's hierarchy of needs is just a theory, and a pathetic one at that. It's just another attempt from the great "science" of psychology to link all of humanity into one ultra-broad generalization. Even Maslow agreed it was seriously flawed. The fact is, people are different, and generalizations like that just don't work. Which all leads up to why the science of psychology is the greatest fraud of the 20th century. "Science" is made of rules. You make theories and you prove them. Psychology is made of speculations and loose-fitting concepts that only work or apply some of the time. It's bullshit. Fun to think about, but you sound like a fool when you present it as fact.

wtf? http://talkingtails.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/800px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needssvg.png?w=399&h=266

EVERYONE needs to satisfy biological functions.
EVERYONE wants security.
EVERYONE needs social contact.
Feeling good about yourself is important in seeing past what is shallow.
And bam, you can now pursue enlightenment.

What could be added or removed to better suit anyone? the first 3 are true for most organisms, all of the 'complex' ones for sure.


How is it bs?



Secondly, a lot of people wouldn't be content to just sit back and enjoy the planet. We have a great planet with some REAL and DESPERATE problems, and relaxing and living a simple life won't do shit. We have starving PEOPLE all over the globe, the planet is warming, the animals are dying, the economy is in crisis, and etc. Doesn't WORKING to help people and fix those problems sound more enlightening and self-educational than sitting on your ass admiring your backyard?

I'm not saying working is wrong. It's absolutely necessary for such a complex society, but i mean working yourself silly. people should look out for number one first, then you can offer help.

Pardon me for going off like this, but it makes me fucking CRAZY when stupid stoner kids say drugs, communism, and "understanding yourself" will fix anything. Money isn't all about making yourself happy and comfortable, and neither is life. If that's what you think, then you don't understand money understand money and you're headed for a serious midlife crisis a couple decades from now. A life like that is meaningless and ultimately you'll find it unfulfilling. You'll be happier if you keep slaving in school, find a job you like, and do your part to improve the world.



[/speed]

That's a pretty harsh judgment. I'm on my way to being a well paid scientist in a career that i have a passion for, i have a bunch of hobbies, great family/friends, and i'm pursing enlightenment through religion and education. I think you misunderstood most of what i said. to me it also sounds like you don't know much about mid life crises but whatever


thanks for that joe

Oh man you have a lot of learning to do.

I don't see how you can call anyone else arrogant with a statement like this being the first thing in your post. Especially Leary.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong, I think people get caught up believing alot of bullshit while they're tripping, some of it is not true. I'm just simply stating that you happen to be a stupid faggot cocksucker, and I hope you pass away so we all don't have to share this world with you fagging it up all the time.

communism wouldn't mean just one country changes. the whole world has to be in sync, just like capitalism. and there wouldn't be a need for borders. i'm just saying it would be nice, i understand that this wouldn't even be a goal for many generations. i don't feel like i need to put in that much to get paid well. i'm in the process of mastering a very respectable and high paying profession. but i see my peers slaving their asses off to be the best, so they could graduate and keep working their asses off. the money i'll be making will be enough to support a family and go all the things i think are worth doing in this life.

Why is communism necessary for a harmonious world society?




wtf? http://talkingtails.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/800px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needssvg.png?w=399&h=266

EVERYONE needs to satisfy biological functions.
EVERYONE wants security.
EVERYONE needs social contact.
Feeling good about yourself is important in seeing past what is shallow.
And bam, you can now pursue enlightenment.

What could be added or removed to better suit anyone? the first 3 are true for most organisms, all of the 'complex' ones for sure.


How is it bs?


It's BS because it only works for some people. The classic example people give to contend Maslow's hierarchy is a starving artist. The starving artist puts his esteem need for art above his physiological need for food. The same is true for anyone who's ever gone hungry for another need. For example, I've skipped meals for drugs before. That doesn't fit into Maslow's scheme. An anorexic puts his or her social needs before their physiological needs. There are a LOT of anorexics out there. If there's going to be any kind of umbrella rule for humans, it has to work for anorexics as well. I guess my issue with it isn't his categorization of needs. Those are actually pretty good. It's the order he puts them in, and the fact that there's an order at all. People are different. People have different priorities. Maslow's hierarchy is an extremely loose generalization.


I'm not saying working is wrong. It's absolutely necessary for such a complex society, but i mean working yourself silly. people should look out for number one first, then you can offer help.

Weren't you just arguing for communism? Seems like we've switched sides a little. I say working yourself silly for a good cause is a great endeavor and is rewarding in many ways. Working yourself silly for no purpose is a waste of time. Everyone should try to work themselves silly for something they believe in.



That's a pretty harsh judgment. I'm on my way to being a well paid scientist in a career that i have a passion for, i have a bunch of hobbies, great family/friends, and i'm pursing enlightenment through religion and education. I think you misunderstood most of what i said. to me it also sounds like you don't know much about mid life crises but whatever


thanks for that joe

You're right. I'm sorry for being a dick. When I said midlife crisis I didn't mean to refer specifically to you, more to the fact that anyone who works purely in their own self interest for a long time will eventually wonder whether or not it's really been worth it. That doesn't seem to be you. I have a ton of respect for scientists and what they do for the world. I meant no disrespect.

Why is communism necessary for a harmonious world society?

because money=competition=/=harmony




It's BS because it only works for some people. The classic example people give to contend Maslow's hierarchy is a starving artist. The starving artist puts his esteem need for art above his physiological need for food. The same is true for anyone who's ever gone hungry for another need. For example, I've skipped meals for drugs before. That doesn't fit into Maslow's scheme. An anorexic puts his or her social needs before their physiological needs. There are a LOT of anorexics out there. If there's going to be any kind of umbrella rule for humans, it has to work for anorexics as well. I guess my issue with it isn't his categorization of needs. Those are actually pretty good. It's the order he puts them in, and the fact that there's an order at all. People are different. People have different priorities. Maslow's hierarchy is an extremely loose generalization.


Starving artists have no other choice, they didn't want to do blue collar labor-but they aren't actually good at anything. You've skipped meals to afford drugs? thats very sad, no wonder you can't see where i'm coming from. anorexia is a mental disorder. people take their superficial images too seriously and as a result rot on this inside.



Weren't you just arguing for communism? Seems like we've switched sides a little. I say working yourself silly for a good cause is a great endeavor and is rewarding in many ways. Working yourself silly for no purpose is a waste of time. Everyone should try to work themselves silly for something they believe in.

I would like the world to be one big commune, but that isn't going to happen instantly like the hippies where trying. instead communism is the product of an enlightened society. where everyone is morally just. but i understand the need to perform in a capitalistic society because thats what our infrastructures are based on, and that's whats going to get me fed. i feel like capitalism is controlling us, but if you can't beat a gorilla that large you have to go with it. only a retard would try to over throw capitalism right now.





You're right. I'm sorry for being a dick. When I said midlife crisis I didn't mean to refer specifically to you, more to the fact that anyone who works purely in their own self interest for a long time will eventually wonder whether or not it's really been worth it. That doesn't seem to be you. I have a ton of respect for scientists and what they do for the world. I meant no disrespect.


i don't think we're on the same page. you're misunderstanding something, i'm not sure what.

because money=competition=/=harmony

Starving artists have no other choice, they didn't want to do blue collar labor-but they aren't actually good at anything. You've skipped meals to afford drugs? thats very sad, no wonder you can't see where i'm coming from. anorexia is a mental disorder. people take their superficial images too seriously and as a result rot on this inside.

I would like the world to be one big commune, but that isn't going to happen instantly like the hippies where trying. instead communism is the product of an enlightened society. where everyone is morally just. but i understand the need to perform in a capitalistic society because thats what our infrastructures are based on, and that's whats going to get me fed. i feel like capitalism is controlling us, but if you can't beat a gorilla that large you have to go with it. only a retard would try to over throw capitalism right now.

i don't think we're on the same page. you're misunderstanding something, i'm not sure what.

1. Starving artists COULD feed themselves, but consider their artwork to be a higher priority. Anorexia being a mental disorder and me being a junkie SHOULD have nothing to do with whether or not Maslow applies. We're all still human, and humans aren't just divided into "normal" and "disordered". It's a spectrum, and if you're going to present Maslow's hierarchy as a legitimate representation of the human needs system, it needs to work for EVERYONE.

2. OK, say we're a great big commune. You STILL have to work for the infrastructure and your meals. The difference is that the lack of competition destroys any incentive to do good work, and quality of products is reduced. Competition ensures top quality everything (obvious exaggeration). It's essential, and it doesn't necessarily translate into disharmony.

3. Help me understand what you're saying then. I'm saying that Maslow is full of it, Communism is less than ideal, "self-understanding" is the language of therapists and bad students, striving to be the best is a worthy task, and (back to the topic) that drugs have jack shit to do with anything. Clarify your position.

1. Starving artists COULD feed themselves, but consider their artwork to be a higher priority. Anorexia being a mental disorder and me being a junkie SHOULD have nothing to do with whether or not Maslow applies. We're all still human, and humans aren't just divided into "normal" and "disordered". It's a spectrum, and if you're going to present Maslow's hierarchy as a legitimate representation of the human needs system, it needs to work for EVERYONE.

2. OK, say we're a great big commune. You STILL have to work for the infrastructure and your meals. The difference is that the lack of competition destroys any incentive to do good work, and quality of products is reduced. Competition ensures top quality everything (obvious exaggeration). It's essential, and it doesn't necessarily translate into disharmony.

3. Help me understand what you're saying then. I'm saying that Maslow is full of it, Communism is less than ideal, "self-understanding" is the language of therapists and bad students, striving to be the best is a worthy task, and (back to the topic) that drugs have jack shit to do with anything. Clarify your position.

1- It isn't a model of the human needs system. a person can get through life-more or less- deficient in some of those areas. but, i believe you cannot reach self actualization with a monkey on your back-whatever it may be. inner turmoil causes these self destructive behaviors.
2-you have to put in your part, but by no means do you have to slave over anything. work is work, but i feel a lot of people take it too far.
3-self actualization is the teaching of gods prophets. i don't know if i can help you understand.

1- It isn't a model of the human needs system. a person can get through life-more or less- deficient in some of those areas. but, i believe you cannot reach self actualization with a monkey on your back-whatever it may be. inner turmoil causes these self destructive behaviors.

2-you have to put in your part, but by no means do you have to slave over anything. work is work, but i feel a lot of people take it too far.
3-self actualization is the teaching of gods prophets. i don't know if i can help you understand.

Don't get all weird on me man. Self-actualization is about being realistic, productive, and happy with yourself. It really has nothing to do with Maslow's bullshit. Slaving over everything for the good of the commune is a central part of communism. It's also a central flaw. Communism assumes that people will want to give their ALL for the collective, when in fact people like you and me would rather just get through the day.

As for God, seems kind of silly to bring him up. Now you look like a lunatic.

Yes, but what made the government go out of their way to claim psychedelic drug use "a threat to the state of the nation" was the social effects...Not the health effects.

The government made the drugs you listed above illegal b.c. mass addiction and death was plaguing the country. The government made psychedelics illegal obviously for a different reason since none of that happened when people took acid, mushrooms and weed.

They may have claimed on paper and even in word to the public that it was a "health threat"..They even believed in it...But that clearly wasn't the primary motive since thousands weren't being sent the grave...

The government didn't like what psychedelics did to institutional cultural values. Some people used them dangerously and that gave the government an excuse to ban them


Bush did believe Iraq had WMDs...However, it was only because he convinced himself. His unconscious motive was clearly something else...

You contradicted yourself, Mr. Kerry. If the real reason they did it was for social reasons they wouldn't have believed it was bad for people.

They simply knew that certain drugs were bad, and because psychedelics are also drugs, all drugs were lumped together and they were considered bad.

Psychedelics do not make people aware of the government conspiracies. You obviously haven't used many psychedelics. Stop posing, pussy

you see, it can't be explained to you. you're ignorant. you can't accept a god, whats more you refer to god as 'he'. you're the fucking lunatic. you're one of the blind. as for communism, it seems to work for all sorts of natives in isolated areas around the world, so to say it wouldn't work is crazy, and to say you have to work your ass off to make it work is crazy too. you see i believe theres more to life. i believe we never left the garden of eden, we've just lost site of it. nothing has ever made more sense to me than that. i mean, step out of the city and look around. this place is beautiful. we're only here for 70 years give or take, what the fuck is the point of slaving over man made shit for this measly amount of time? and you can't even argue with that. as a science student i'm familiar with their flawed explanations of reality, and frankly fed up-so good luck trying to debunk any of my points using science. chances are i'm more familiar with the sciences than you are. by calling god 'he' you're propagating the idea that these fucking idiot Christians have. god is not a man, that model of god doesn't even make sense. but it doesn't sound like you're not even worried about it, whats the point in explaining shit?

No model of God makes sense. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that suggests the existence of a God. If you're holding some, feel free to put it up. Maybe I'll reconsider. Until I see something to suggest God is out there, I'll stick with the science, looneyboy.

I'll also point out that communists tend to be hardcore atheists.

No model of God makes sense. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that suggests the existence of a God. If you're holding some, feel free to put it up. Maybe I'll reconsider. Until I see something to suggest God is out there, I'll stick with the science, looneyboy.

I'll also point out that communists tend to be hardcore atheists.

but have you studied the sciences? our model of the atom doesn't make sense, but we use it. if you aren't familiar with modern physics, i'll explain; if atoms were to really behave the way our model says it does-all matter would instantly collapse into nothingness. thats a very major flaw. we cannot talk with certainty about the origins of the species h. sapiens-much less the origins of life. but oh, you're so sure science is the truth. you're an ignorant bastard. did you even go to school? as people we don't know SHIT, but for some reason fuckers like you think we do. keep doing drugs, keep sinking deeper into your hole of misery- but i can tell you right now doing the shit you're doing you're never going to be what you could be. chances are you're going to have a midlife crisis. but i'm not going to show you because i don't like you, i don't think you're worth even bothering with. theres proof out there, someday you'll see.

but have you studied the sciences? our model of the atom doesn't make sense, but we use it. if you aren't familiar with modern physics, i'll explain; if atoms were to really behave the way our model says it does-all matter would instantly collapse into nothingness. thats a very major flaw. we cannot talk with certainty about the origins of the species h. sapiens-much less the origins of life. but oh, you're so sure science is the truth. you're an ignorant bastard. did you even go to school? as people we don't know SHIT, but for some reason fuckers like you think we do. keep doing drugs, keep sinking deeper into your hole of misery- but i can tell you right now doing the shit you're doing you're never going to be what you could be. chances are you're going to have a midlife crisis. but i'm not going to show you because i don't like you, i don't think you're worth even bothering with. theres proof out there, someday you'll see.

You're not showing me proof because you don't have any, not because you don't like me. You don't have any because none exists.

What kind of scientist are you, exactly? Religious sciences? What specific atom model are you talking about? When you say we can't speak with certainty about the origin of humans, are you talking about the bits and pieces of evolutionary history we haven't discovered, or are you actually questioning evolution? As for the origins of life, you're right, we can't speak with absolute certainty, but there are several good theories, all of which are better than attributing it to God. Understanding of the world has to be achieved through careful hypothesis and testing. The scientific method. God is not scientific at all. You were railing against human constructs in this thread yesterday. God is the ultimate human construct. People created God to explain everything they couldn't, and I'm not sure how a scientifically educated person like yourself could be so blind. I'm not trying to be closed-minded. I think religion is great in the moral-teaching capacity. It's really helped some people out, but you take it too far, too literally, and you're a fool. God is no more real than the tooth fairy, and if you can't understand that, then I can't help YOU. But hey, whenever you find me some evidence, I'll be happy to take a look. Until then I'll just keep on sinking into my misery pit :)

[QUOTE=dummy;10779709] it seems to work for all sorts of natives in isolated areas around the world, so to say it wouldn't work is crazy, and to say you have to work your ass off to make it work is crazy too. you see i believe theres more to life. i believe we never left the garden of eden, we've just lost site of it. nothing has ever made more sense to me than that. i mean, step out of the city and look around. this place is beautiful. we're only here for 70 years give or take, what the fuck is the point of slaving over man made shit for this measly amount of time? .

by calling god 'he' you're propagating the idea that these fucking idiot Christians have. god is not a man, that model of god doesn't even make sense.QUOTE]

truth

I think religion is great in the moral-teaching capacity. It's really helped some people out God is no more real than the tooth fairy.

thats true too!

You're not showing me proof because you don't have any, not because you don't like me. You don't have any because none exists.

What kind of scientist are you, exactly? Religious sciences? What specific atom model are you talking about? When you say we can't speak with certainty about the origin of humans, are you talking about the bits and pieces of evolutionary history we haven't discovered, or are you actually questioning evolution? As for the origins of life, you're right, we can't speak with absolute certainty, but there are several good theories, all of which are better than attributing it to God. Understanding of the world has to be achieved through careful hypothesis and testing. The scientific method. God is not scientific at all. You were railing against human constructs in this thread yesterday. God is the ultimate human construct. People created God to explain everything they couldn't, and I'm not sure how a scientifically educated person like yourself could be so blind. I'm not trying to be closed-minded. I think religion is great in the moral-teaching capacity. It's really helped some people out, but you take it too far, too literally, and you're a fool. God is no more real than the tooth fairy, and if you can't understand that, then I can't help YOU. But hey, whenever you find me some evidence, I'll be happy to take a look. Until then I'll just keep on sinking into my misery pit :)

there is no proof that matter exists, yet you're certain it does. you think you know a lot more than you actually do. it takes more than being shown to understand that there is a god. what sort of religion do you think i follow? would be interesting to hear.... i can basically follow any religion, once you get past the bs they all teach the same thing. RELIGION is a human construct, not god. a persons connection with oneness does not come from a book, but the books lead people in the right direction. you take scientific theories and hypothesis for truth, but they are rarely very much more than educated guesses. they're disproved all the time. the creationist model is wrong, it doesn't make sense-i'm not a fucking Christian, they took the bible too literally. anthropologists talk about how we will NEVER know our lineage-chances are there aren't going to be any more major anthropological discoveries. they have like 40 fossil specimens from a species that was around for several hundred thousand years, thanks science. the bohr model of the atom is super faulty-they only use it because it fits into the calculations, if that described how atoms actually behave, all matter would collapse on itself in a fraction of a second. i'm a student of physical science, but i take a lot more sci courses than just physics. and i bet you think i was brought up by my family with god in my life. well, you would be wrong. i'm from the ussr, there was no god growing up. i've only recently found god with my research into psychedelics and eastern religious practice, as well as fringe. on top of what they teach me in school. i don't really want to argue whether god exists. if you want to find god you will, but as far as i'm concerned-you're blind. some of the smartest people in the world understand what i'm saying, and i feel bad for the sad fucks like you. i also feel sorry for all the people that claim they found god, but they're preached a false interpretation of some prophets word. so what science courses have you taken? can you explain gravity to me? can you tell me how a humans nervous system works, and not just describe how they think it works(can you tell me where this life force comes from?)? can you prove that matter has substance? if the top scientists can't, i really doubt some junkie with no light in his life can. science has failed to provide me with answers. there may be truth in science, but by no means is it the ultimate. it's just an intricate system of measurements that attempts to describe whats going on, but we're so limited because we can't sense more than a tiny fraction of the spectrum of wave lengths. don't pull the proof card on me unless you can show me something tangible. and trust me i'll be able to debunk any proof you show me, because there is no real proof.

if i'm wrong, then i've spent time getting to know myself and learning to love everyone. if you're wrong, you're a confused scientist. i've never read the bible but i know what happens. god puts us in the garden of eden. thats exactly what happened. the driving force of life put us lucky ass organisms onto this beautiful planet to live and enjoy. we weren't equipped with the biological tools it takes to understand everything around us. i really don't think we were meant to. i think that is our biggest limit, but we can't see it. we're not equipped with the brain to understand, but we're curious enough to try.

No model of God makes sense. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that suggests the existence of a God. If you're holding some, feel free to put it up. Maybe I'll reconsider. Until I see something to suggest God is out there, I'll stick with the science, looneybo.

The fact that the bumble bee can fly?

I regard what you said as truthful in genral but I would additionaly adress that even if you are "brave" that there is allot more involved than simply ingesting the drug and also not all you see/feel on psychs is truely relevant rather, treat psychs like fables. Some good truth but still not nececarily all real.

I don't see how you can call anyone else arrogant with a statement like this being the first thing in your post. Especially Leary.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong, I think people get caught up believing alot of bullshit while they're tripping, some of it is not true. I'm just simply stating that you happen to be a stupid faggot cocksucker, and I hope you pass away so we all don't have to share this world with you fagging it up all the time.
My arrogance is nothing like that of Leary. As for the rest of that shit, I must have offended you in the past. I am sorely sorry. Go cry me a river pussy. Then you can build a bridge, and get the fuck over it.