Quote Originally Posted by dajo View Post
You have experience though, right?

I think the things you realize that have a longer-lasting positive effect on you
or still stick with you after the drug wore off entirely are the 'real' ones, all
that is just the drug speaking will cease to apply once the drug wore off.
But that of course postulates a certain degree of self-honesty. But as far
as actual proof goes,.. that's a little difficult. But I think it becomes quite
clear in what way they function or present any 'truth' when you do them.
To me they rather seem to relativize the term and show alternatives or
different possibilities (and the way how this happens, how thoughts work
and conclusions are presented I find highly interesting).

These sometimes seem to be impossible to come up with on your own, often
because they are just kind of 'there' and there was no conscious thought
process that lead to them. I think that many think these thoughts must come
from 'an outside source'. But of course there is no proof here either.
I have a lot of experience, and that is most of the problem. I have enough experience that I should be fitting right into this conversation about how the rest of the world just hasn't woken up yet and touching god in a methyl molecule but in situations like these, all I feel is that I'm the only one that looks at the disparity between perception and reality and doesn't immediately forsake reality.

I want to believe Mckenna when he describes his framework for reality that has been revealed to him by the sentient (or at least communicative) psilocybin molecule but all I can think of is that his tone and inflection is awful similar to Charles Manson's when he's describing how the Beetles wrote all their albums to communicate with him about how he's the second coming of Christ and should be inciting black people to revolt by killing random celebrities. Why are McKenna's mushroom fueled revelations any more significant than Manson's acid fueled revelations?