Sage under scrutiny

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Thru December 2001: Sage under scrutiny
By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Vera,

"Finding beauty in the ache of others is giving their suffering value, valor, and timelessness. Tell me, what is more elevating and enduring than Beauty?"

Some things do not warrant being elevated and suffering is one of these things. This applies whether it be your own suffering or the suffering of those close to you today or the suffering of others today or in the past.

The result of suffering is pain, and the time or distance away from you does not reduce the pain caused to the sufferer. You are not the central point regarding the suffering of others, the reality of suffering is experienced by those who suffer/have suffered and the reality is not beautiful. The actual nature of pain and suffering doesn't change depending on the distance in space and time from Vera, we are not talking about your suffering.

You have made your point and I can see your point, but your point is very very wrong.

I have made my point now so that's an end to it from me.

Hobgoblin

By Heiko on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 07:58 pm: Edit

"After Auschwitz, no poetry."
- Theodor Adorno

Not everyone thought so...

Paul Celan - Todesfuge (Death Fugue)

(great poem - read aloud in German language it feels just like the apocalypse is coming...)

By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 06:30 pm: Edit

In Spanish, it can make you cry...

By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Good for you, Bart!

IN YOU THE EARTH

Little
rose,
roselet,
at times,
tiny and naked,
it seems
as though you would fit
in one of my hands,
as though I'll clasp you like this
and carry you to my mouth,
but
suddenly
my feet touch your feet and my mouth your lips:
you have grown,
your shoulders rise like two hills,
your breasts wander over my breast,
my arm scarcely manages to encircle the thin
new-moon line of your waist:
in love you have loosened yourself like sea water:
I can scarcely measure the sky's most spacious eyes
and I lean down to your mouth to kiss the earth.

By Verawench on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 06:21 pm: Edit

"I am familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda"

Bart Simpson

By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 05:32 pm: Edit

"After Auschwitz, no poetry."

- Theodor Adorno "

"I'm glad Pablo Neruda wasn't listening"

Jorge

By Pataphysician on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 03:32 pm: Edit

"After Auschwitz, no poetry."

- Theodor Adorno

By Verawench on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 03:18 pm: Edit

"How would you like it if it happened to you?" they ask. Well I wouldn't. And neither would you or you or you. Personal suffering is not the same as the suffering of others. Two different things. Imagine the alternative: being perpetually involved in the plight of all of humanity, being attached to the same spine of sorrow. You would either become Mother Theresa or kill yourself.

Time and distance will place a gap between you and the ache of others. I refuse to weep and frown and fret over the dead and the distant. Finding beauty in the ache of others is giving their suffering value, valor, and timelessness. Tell me, what is more elevating and enduring than Beauty?

I feel like I will probably have to keep going and going here and still won't make my point so I am hanging up my battle lily.

By Pataphysician on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Weird how my post doesn't show up on the index. ...test, test...

Anybody seen "Shoah"?

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Shooting in your pyjamas can be messy, I hope you washed them afterwards.

By _Blackjack on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 12:26 pm: Edit


Quote:

The past is not irrelevant.



One night, I shot irrelevant in my pyjamas. What he was doing in my pyjamas I'll never know...

By Pataphysician on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 12:13 pm: Edit

>>On another point if you want to read a poet who had at least a modicum of understanding about the results of man's destruction then read some Wilfred Owen.
>>


...or the German Expressionists response to WWI, esp. Otto Dix, Georg Grosz, Max Beckman.

But more to the point here, look at Dada. They came from an Expressionist background, but quickly realized that any artistic response would be, well, "artistic". Even the worst anti-war stuff the Expressionists could dish out was still inherently aesthetic. The Dadas had the incredible insite to realize that in the face of war, culture itself was at best impotent and at worst culpable. They didn't want a cultural response to war, they wanted to destroy culture itself, because it too had blood on its hands. They wanted nothing less than to destroy the culture that produced the war.

A more contemporary example that wrestles with the "aestheticizing" problem would be Claude Lanzman's 10 hour documentary on the Holocaust: "Shoah". He used no archival footage, no bodies, no goosestepping Nazis, no pale ghosts from 50 years ago. He used nothing that he couldn't see or hear himself in the 1980s. Consequently, we see the open wounds of the Holocaust right in our midst.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Dr Ordinaire,

Perhaps I have been a bit harsh on Byron as he probably did actually want to fight for Greece.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Vera,

When you talk of the past what do you classify as the past. 100 years ago, 50 years ago, last year, last month or yesterday?

If we look on atrocities and suffering that happened in the past as being somehow nothing more than entertainment value and glamorise it with aesthetic value then what chance have we ever got of preventing similar events re-occuring?

The past is not irrelevant. The media is peopled by a bunch of self-serving scum who'd glamorise any attorcity if they thought they could make a fast buck. We do ourselves a dishonour by singing to their tune.

We should do more to show the true horrors of events on the media (although turning stomachs doesn't sell papers very well). When people start to divorce true suffering and horror (which has no aesthetic value) from past events then the importance of avoiding repetition of such events is diminished.

For example should we start portraying the holocaust (I'm not being at all personal here and no offence is intended), or the Cambodian genocide without showing suffering? Will the public then give it an aesthetic value and talk romantically about the glory of these?

Hobgoblin

By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 11:57 am: Edit

My Lord, aren't you engaging in "grave dancing" here?

Yes, Byron went to war full of "romantic notions". So did the volunteers in the International Brigades who fought fascism in the Spanish civil war.

As far as not being killed by a bullet, how many British soldiers died of malaria and other tropical diseases during the last war? Are they to be respected less than those killed by bullets?

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 11:43 am: Edit

Dr Ordinaire,

Yes Byron did go (with romantic notions probably based on classical myth and legend) to Greece/Turkey and fund the Greek insurgents.

The fact is that Lord Byron NEVER took to the field in battle. He never fired a shot at the enemy or ducked from an enemy bullet. It was not a Turkish bullet that killed him, it was simply ill-health and he would have died whether he had went to Greece/Turkey or not.

He didn't seem to mind living it up in Spain in 1809 when his fellow countrymen were fighting Napoleon at Talavera.

He was in fact buried in England at a village church (although his heart was buried in Greece). He was not refused burial in England, they just didn't want him buried at Westminster Abbey.

Hobgoblin

By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 11:42 am: Edit

I'll have to trust you on that one, Don. I haven't been exposed to either...

Though if I had to choose, I'll probably drink some "vinho verde" with some Portuguese peasant than hunt with some parasite...

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 11:04 am: Edit

Those fox-hunting parasites outclass miscellaneous portuguese peasantry by a wide margin, jorge. Or is it georgie?

By Verawench on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 09:55 am: Edit

Seems like everyone's missed my point. I was talking about the past and the aesthetic spin time puts on human tragedy. 40 years ago, people watched in horror as Kennedy's head got blown off. 100 years from now it'll be part of the Kennedy legend, a Greek play to be analysed and philosophized. Fear and trauma are temporary.. time solidifies them into something else altogether until they are just another story to be told.

Make no mistake, the media knows the aesthetic attraction of human tragedy. Whether that's noble or utterly vile, it's a fact and humanity is drawn to it. Would anyone give a flying fuck about the orphaned Elian Gonzales if he was a fugly, non-photogenic little Cuban? Maybe. But not as much.

People condemn rotten.com while they seek out on their tv screens some of the very same images that website features. Only rotten.com isn't in denial about human curiosity and fascinating with regard to the suffering of others. How many times have you seen an accident on the freeway and NOT slowed down?

Everyone seems particularly upset over my example of watching old black and white footage of London ablaze. Want to talk ethics? Start talking about how something like this could have been avoided in the first place, not holler at me for being mesmerized by the glow and the slow, contemplative camera movement over the ruins.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 09:07 am: Edit

"You won't find any such understanding from a 'dark-cloaked' privileged English aristocrat like Lord Byron who spent his idle life drinking burgundy from human skulls and buggering young boys. We didn't see him joining the 1812 war did we? "

No, Hob, but he DID die in a war. He died in the swamps off Missolonghi (sp?) during the Greek war of independence from the Turkish. Maybe the 1812 war was the wrong war for him.

As an historical aside, the Greeks offered to bury him in the Akropolis (talk about sacred ground!), the first person ever to be offered that priviledge. The British, on the other hand, refused to bury him in...what's the name of that abbey where they bury all those fox-hunting parasites?

By Marc on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 04:19 am: Edit

Vera,

You recently went thru a very frightening experience: your sister's life was being threatened. You came to the forum and asked us
for advice and help. Remember? Did you "take delight" in watching your sister's suffering and fear? Was it aesthetic?

There may be some kind of dramatic allure to suffering, until it happens to you.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 03:37 am: Edit

Vera,

Apologies for coming on a bit aggressive. However in answer to your second point, yes I have (and there was nothing at all romantic about it).

I have an elderly friend who was part of a bomber crew that bombed Dresden in WW2. What he did (although he does believe the action was necessary) has haunted him for his entire life since then, he tries to imagine just how many innocent people he killed and who they might have been. He imagines what the children he killed would have looked like if they had been alive today. Try talking to him about the beauty of the glowing wreckage of Dresden.

If you want to sit back and glorify in the destruction of humanity then at least you need to understand what is involved in the destruction of humanity. It is not about wrecking buildings it is about wrecking individual lives.

" "Would you glorify if it was yourself, your family or your friends who suffered?" No, but again, I wasn't talking about that, was I? Are you sure you're responding to the right post?"

The point is Vera is that when you glorify man's destructon of humanity you glorify in the destruction of men and women. These people also have freinds and family whose grief would be no different from yours if you were in their place. Try to put yourself in the place of your fellow man who is suffering. What right have you to glorify in their suffering? Do you think the glowing rubble of London after the Germans had finished bombing was the results of a big fireworks display?

On another point if you want to read a poet who had at least a modicum of understanding about the results of man's destruction then read some Wilfred Owen. You won't find any such understanding from a 'dark-cloaked' privileged English aristocrat like Lord Byron who spent his idle life drinking burgundy from human skulls and buggering young boys. We didn't see him joining the 1812 war did we?

Hobgoblin

By Don_Walsh on Friday, August 03, 2001 - 08:04 am: Edit

Time for a McLuhan revival.

War is war, war on television is something else. Within the 20th century we more or less invented mass media (broadcast) propaganda and also tried to uninvent it or at least get a handle on it. I have friends who make a living lecturing and writing on infowar, and the role of the media in wartime.

Anyway, suffice it to say that soundbytes of war do not work. You may indeed see someone blown to bits but in a detached and sanitary way. You won't smell them and you certainly won'
t have inconvenient bits of them splattered all over you (much less get hurt if you are that close) and you won't have to listen to the keening of the not yet dead. I daresay, none of you would like it any more than I ever did. At the best it engenders a deep shame at still being alive. I don't know what it makes the bombers feel like. Explosives were never my weapon of preference. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians I find particularly abhorrent. I have always been fascinated with the seeming paradox that, at the onset of WWII, we were castigating the nazis for doing so, but by the end of the war we were Bomber Harris and Cologne and Dresden and let's not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this IS fucking early August and the ghosts are getting active...I have walked in the Peace park along the canal where flaming civilians threw themselves in and I have rung the Heian-kane and I'd rather not debate this decision (of Truman's, of America) with anyone who hasn't.

By Verawench on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 04:01 pm: Edit

What do you say?

By Verawench on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 04:00 pm: Edit

We can reference each other into a frenzy.

By Verawench on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Blackjack, it's you, me, A/C, and DVD.

:P

By _Blackjack on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 03:17 pm: Edit

The funny thing is, this "decline" of humanity seems to have produced greater health, wealth and happiness for the entire species. Go figure. I'm no optimist, but I think most people uderestimate how badly life used to suck.

By Verawench on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 02:44 pm: Edit

"Watching TV footage of wars is not the same as reality"

Did I call it reality? Take a black and white footage of a city set ablaze. By the virtue of its medium it becomes aesthetic. It is not a true reflection the reality of that time.

"Have you ever seen anyone blown to bits in an explosion?"

Have you? Anyway, I wasn't talking about people getting blown to bits, was I? It's like saying that I wouldn't like a theater play as much if I knew that the playwright was an alcoholic and that there were fights and gossip going on backstage. Or that I wouldn't find a cemetery romantic and beautiful if I knew what maggot fiesta went on six feet under.

"Have you ever even spoken to anyone involved in such an event?"

Blah blah. My grandfather was at Auschwitz and nearly died so my answer is yes, I grew up hearing stories of war, living in a town where signs of Nazi bombings were still visible and where in 3rd grade I was shown black and white pictures of piles of children's shoes - children who perished in gas chambers. They were horrific and fascinating. And they were also part of the past.

"It is not a joke or something you have any right to consider as a beautiful event"

I like to find beauty in everything. Suffering is ever-present, as is beauty, and if you ignore that, you are deluding yourself.

"Would you glorify if it was yourself, your family or your friends who suffered?"

No, but again, I wasn't talking about that, was I? Are you sure you're responding to the right post?

"I'm afraid your attitude IS self-indulgent and ego-centric no matter how you try to dress it up. "

Yes. What's wrong with that? At least I admit I'm selfish. Name us a couple of great things you did today to benefit humanity and maybe you won't fall under the same description as selfish ol' me.

Please, don't confuse aesthetics with morality.

By Wolfgang on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 01:53 pm: Edit

I said we are on the top of the food chain. What I didn't say is that makes us responsible for everything that is bellow because we need it to survive.

The world is ugly and is falling appart because of the abose sentense is not well understood by most of us.

The medias creates heros that are related to the spectators, that's why the new modern-hero is a "helpless soul watching the world fall apart on his television screen."

Wolf.
"l'enfer c'est les autres" [Sartre]

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Vera,

Watching TV footage of wars is not the same as reality, it is next to worthless, everything is sanitised, it is not a reflection of reality. Surely your ideas would only have merit if I you experienced the real thing.

It's very easy to sit back in the comfort of your armchair indulging in romantic notions of human suffering when you know nothing at all of the reality. If you want your romantic ideas to have any worthwhile basis they should be based on reality.

Have you ever seen anyone blown to bits in an explosion? If you had I doubt you'd find anything at all glorious about it. Have you ever even spoken to anyone involved in such an event? Perhaps seek out a survivor from the Oklahoma bombing and ask them. Or a war veteran who's been in thick of it. Or a concentration camp survivor. Or a survivor of the Rwandan conflict.

There is nothing glorious whatsoever about the death and suffering of other human beings. It is not a joke or something you have any right to consider as a beautiful event. Would you glorify if it was yourself, your family or your friends who suffered?

I'm afraid your attitude IS self-indulgent and ego-centric no matter how you try to dress it up.

Hobgoblin

By Verawench on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 11:34 am: Edit

Hob,

I'm saying it's all inevitable anyway.. sure, I can recycle, use non-aerosol hairspray and eat veggie burgers. In fact, I do all of the above. But the world continues sweeping downward despite my meager actions and I *will* watch what I cannot help with fascination - because the alternative is getting very upset over something you cannot possibly control.

Now, say, footage of war ruins on the History Channel. Do you really watch them with a horrified eye, taking notes on how to avoid the third world war and how to exterminate cruelty and vice? Curiosity, fascination, the need for acknowledging our own comfort, these fuel our desire for the spectacle of human suffering.

You want to attribute this to my egotism? Where would we be without selfishness, Hob?

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 10:59 am: Edit

Vera,

"...watching the world fall apart on his television screen. I don't know.. in my mind.. we might as well glorify and luxuriate in that."

The problem with this is what gives humanity the right to destroy the world and glorify in it? Human beings are not the only (or the most) important thing on this planet. It is not our property to destroy at will. We have no right to glorify it's destruction.

Without wanting to offend, your attitude reeks of ego-centric arrogance which is the main reason we are fucking up this planet.

As for the glory of the ruins of London after the Germans bombed it. I doubt if you would feel this if you had been there and suffering the consequences. There is nothing glorious about blood, guts, death and shattered lives and dreams.

Why don't you put your romantic notions on destruction to the test? Get yourself down to a suitable war tomorrow, get in amongst the blood, guts, death and tears, in amongst the explosions, fire, gun-shots and rubble, look at the people around you, make friends with them, get to know them as the individuals they are and not just as statistics. Then after a few months come back and tell us all about your glorious experience. If you think the consequences of war or serious conflict are in any way glorious then you've never even come close to experiencing it.

Hobgoblin

By Verawench on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 09:05 am: Edit

"Bravo humanity, your cruelty and ego will be your downfall"

Marc, don't tell me there isn't a spectator's delight in watching the downward glide of humanity? Some of our idols, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, saw the seedlings of that decay and instead of frowning upon it with a moralist's brow reveled in it as one does in a fever's delirium.

The most exquisite images to ever flash before human eyes have been of human error and suffering: the catharsis of a Greek play, David's take on the death of Marat, the glowing ruins of London after blitzkrieg.

There seems to be, particularly in Europe, a new notion of a tragic hero - he is no longer Byron, roaming exotic lands in pursuit of sin. Rather, he is a helpless soul watching the world fall apart on his television screen. I don't know.. in my mind.. we might as well glorify and luxuriate in that.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 04:33 am: Edit

It's got us the true source of happiness : air-con and DVD players, and nuclear weapons.

By Marc on Thursday, August 02, 2001 - 04:08 am: Edit

and where has being at the top of the so-called
"food chain" gotten us? The edge of annihilation.
Bravo humanity, your cruelty and ego will be your downfall.

By Verawench on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 10:38 am: Edit

"we'r at the top of the chain food"

LOL!!!!

sounds crunchy!

By Wolfgang on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 10:24 am: Edit

All this knowledge doesn't help us because in the end, we all must eat, sleep, shit and die even if we think ourselve as beeing superior by our knowledge.

But that doesn't mean philosophy is pointless, maybe it will make the difference between humanity or no humanity in one million years. Does it make us superior ? maybe yes, from an animal point of view, if it give us a chance to survive for a longer time.

All we realy need is to have sex and reproduce, we'r genetically programmed to survive and we'r at the top of the chain food. That's the only superiority we can claim for.

By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 10:47 pm: Edit

...mmm, Greasewood and Sage...

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 11:32 am: Edit

Heiko,

I reckon the realisation that "all is one" and we differ very little from a stone or a tree can actually help us a lot.

It could dispel some of the ridiculous ego-mania and harmful arrogance displayed by men and women. It could make us realise that we are not special in this world but simply part of it as rocks, plants and animals are. Perhaps then we would be more inclined not to view it as simply a resource for our greed, but something that we need to preserve and respect.

But then how many will actually view themselves as of little more importance than stones or trees, despite what evidence there is for this? Men and women have egos too large to accept this. The notion of Self is too important to them to accept that they are merely part of a system of developing energy. Perhaps Prince Siddhartha hit on something here 2500 years ago.

Hobgoblin
(Written by an atheist with a closet admiration for Buddha)

By Melinelly on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 07:34 am: Edit

"all is one"

bingo.

By Heiko on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 06:49 am: Edit

I just found out -after watching a discussion about philosophic theories concerning up-to-date physical knowledge of the universe (on Swiss tv)- that everything must be true.

Really, the more we know about the physics of the universe, the more we must go back to the age-old knowledge that all is one and that we differ very little from a stone or a tree. We are all just part of one system of developing energy - how could anything be untrue in that system?

And what does all that knowledge help us in our lives? Nada!

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 01:13 am: Edit

Of course you can Vera.

By Verawench on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 04:27 pm: Edit

"but now you prove what we are saying, that Truth lies beyond definition. when you define Truth, it is no longer True."

I meant the outright definition of the word "Truth"

"Keats would be no more be able to recognise Truth or Beauty than a street beggar"

I was alluding to his quote from the Ode to the Grecian Urn. Truth is beauty, beauty truth, etc...

Hob, can i give you a hug?

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Keats would be no more be able to recognise Truth or Beauty than a street beggar. Whether you call it Truth, Nibbana, Nirvana, Beauty, or Dog-piss is not relevant. Semantics are not important. All that matters is the experience. Of course it's ellusive, why do many spend their whole lives chasing it, trying to hold on to it, trying find a way to merge with it? It's not just the thing that gives meaning to life, it's the only thing in life that HAS any meaning or worth.

Hobgoblin

By Melinelly on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:37 pm: Edit

"Well, you are calling on elusive things that defy description and calling them Truth. That might infringe on the definition of the word Truth."

but now you prove what we are saying, that Truth lies beyond definition. when you define Truth, it is no longer True.

"However, I do agree that the things you name give life meaning - and that these things amount to Beauty."

Beauty: just another definition masking Truth. all things are beautiful. all things are Truth.

"And if Keats was in any way correct, then the two grand concepts of the Beautiful and the True are one and same."

peas in a pod so to speak. yup yup yup.

By Verawench on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:13 pm: Edit

See, I always figured that's why most of us are here, fascinated by this particular liquid because of its sensual and lovely and elusive qualities: the romance of its history or the epicurean delight of finding that one brand that delights the palate.

By Verawench on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Well, you are calling on elusive things that defy description and calling them Truth. That might infringe on the definition of the word Truth.

However, I do agree that the things you name give life meaning - and that these things amount to Beauty.

And if Keats was in any way correct, then the two grand concepts of the Beautiful and the True are one and same.

By Melinelly on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:04 pm: Edit

i'm with hobby on this one. the second you try to grasp Truth is the second you lose it. Truth is certainly something that can be known, but not known through rationalization or understanding, rather as hobgob points out, through feeling. the first whiff of coffee brewing in the waking morn... the scent of the ocean at dawn... cold winter breeze through your hair... orgasm, louche, a sneeze even... all are Truth in essence, but the second the moment passes through the senses and into the rational mind it gets filed away, categorized by experiences in memory, no longer truth but rather something tangible and recognizable.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Heiko,

I believe it was the biblical connection with money-lenders in the Temple and Judas and his 40 pieces of silver that resulted in this profession being deemed fit only for Jews. Church and State were hand-in-glove in those times.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Barabas,

You make a good point. You will never find Truth through belief, rationalising and logic. However disposing of all these rational, logical methods of trying to find truth it is possible to experience Truth (or Nibana, Nirvana etc as some choose to call it). Knowing Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual ability, or reasoning, or any lofty ideas put forward by philosophers alive or dead. An imbecile has as much chance of seeing Truth as has a philosophical genius.

It won't be found by intellectualising and it doesn't need to be understood, it just needs to be felt. To me Truth is that moment during an orgasm when you get that 'white-light' thing, or when I see a sunset of a beach on the West of Ireland, or when I see waves crashing against the rocks on the shore. I've no idea what it is that I'm feeling or seeing at these moments, other than it's really something else, for me if that's not Truth I don't know what the fuck is.

Hobgoblin

By Barabbas on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:21 am: Edit

Truth (an ugly word)... maybe Truth exists, I don't know.
What I do know is that we cannot know Truth. Everything is belief. Some people say that you can find the truth by rationalising, but what if logic doesn't exist. Maybe God is fucking with our minds making us think we are thinking rationally and we can't know that He isn't.

Then it gets complicated, because you think... how can I know that I cannot know the Truth if I came to this conclusion through the 'reasoning' which I am questioning? Think about it enough and you'll go mad. It's the only true paradox I 'know' of.

By Heiko on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 12:12 am: Edit

"The Jews were quite simply not permitted to earn a living any other way other than by money-lending (as at the time this was deemed a most dishonourable profession)."

Perfect - I totally agree, you just said what I wanted to add (only in better English).


"Believe it or not Vera, most women like screaming in ecstasy while getting fucked to hell and back."

What do you think of girls who like to talk about getting fucked to hell and back with a bunch of drunk guys she doesn't even know...you know what I mean?

By Heiko on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 12:01 am: Edit

If anyone was prude, Nietzsche was!

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Vera,

"See, a girl suggests that instead of talking about sex we actually go HAVE sex and she gets called a prude."

What you actually suggested was :

"Let's shut the forum down and go masturbate. Yeah, that's it, that'll do us right."

Not quite the same as suggesting we all go find a soul-mate and fuck each other to oblivion.

"Talking about it is boring and a waste of time."

It can be, but not as boring as some other topics discussed. But my post on orgasm and Truth WAS made in good faith, just because someone mentions sex it doesn't mean they're being offensive (perhaps you should examine your attitudes here). Truth needs to be experienced and it won't be found in the works of Nietzsche or anyone else. It will however be found during a good orgasm and that is a fact.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Vera,

"See, a girl suggests that instead of talking about sex we actually go HAVE sex and she gets called a prude."

What you actually suggested was :

"Let's shut the forum down and go masturbate. Yeah, that's it, that'll do us right."

Not quite the same as suggesting we all go find a soul-mate and fuck each other to oblivion.

"Talking about it is boring and a waste of time."

It can be, but not as boring as some other topics discussed. But my post on orgasm and Truth WAS made in good faith, just because someone mentions sex it doesn't mean they're being offensive (perhaps you should examine your attitudes here). Truth needs to be experienced and it won't be found in the works of Nietzsche or anyone else. It will however be found during a good orgasm and that is a fact.

Hobgoblin

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 08:09 pm: Edit

I have back issues. Penthouse, Hustler, Oui, Chic, Juggs and KnobJob.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Yeah, I'm the one with the sex issues around here...

By Verawench on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Head, don't worry your pretty little prosthesis about this one, you know I'm yours.

See, a girl suggests that instead of talking about sex we actually go HAVE sex and she gets called a prude. Strange times we live in.

Why Hob is claiming he knows the humidity level in my undies is a true mystery. I promise he's never been or ever will be anywhere near them. But ranting and raving as he is, perhaps he should check his own joe boxers for wet spots.

For the record, I love sex. I enjoy sex. Fucking is fabulous, exhilirating, therapeutic. Talking about it is boring and a waste of time.

Hob, relax. I'm not in any way trying to curtail your pecker's civil rights.

Wench

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 06:23 pm: Edit

I smell a little sexual tension brewing.

Someone's got a crush...

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Vera,

Just trying to give you some helpful advice. The only itch you've got is in your dry pussy and you would do well to get that itch relieved. It really would do you good, it might even help your sense of humour.

It's very sad when as a result of my initial post made on the benefits of an orgasm you start hopping up and down and getting all offended. Nobody else on the forum gets offended whenever sex is mentioned, it's always you Vera. But then you probably view the idea of good pure horny sex as an attack on Womanhood or some other nonsense. If you can't see the wonderful benefits of an orgasm then I can only presume you've never experienced one. You have my pity.

As for trying to usurp Marc's position as the "forum's horny bastard" as you see him, I've no desire to do this, Marc is Marc, Hobgoblin is Hobgoblin. Marc's just not the only one on this forum that recognises the benefits of a good fuck.

I'm not going to sit back and pretend sex is a dirty exploitative act just because it offends you. Believe it or not Vera, most women like screaming in ecstasy while getting fucked to hell and back.

Hobgoblin

By Pataphysician on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 10:49 am: Edit

Yeah, Hob, c'mon -- "given a good seeing to"??

By Verawench on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 09:25 am: Edit

Marc, Hob's after your job. And to boot, he's really bad at it. He lacks your panache and your unique infuriating quality. He's merely irritating, never insulting. Hob must be stopped. Hob's horny talk is the equivalent of a scalp itch versus a skull fracture from Marc.

Marc, please reclaim your rightful role as the forum's horny bastard. And I promise to start my own "Sexual Confessions of an Absinthe Wench" thread for your enjoyment.

By Marc on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 12:36 am: Edit

The closest we get to heaven on earth is in that
sublime moment when you cum with your lover. No more duality. A perfect fusion of two bodies and souls. All lines seperating one from the other
disappear. Egos dissolving in white light. Nirvana. Wish it lasted longer.

THE EDITING FUNCTION WORKS!

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 12:34 am: Edit

"how many anti-semites actually know anything about the teachings of Judaism"

Very few bigots want to know anything about those they hate. All hatred is based on ignorance.

Actualy the fact that Jews in Europe earned their living by banking was the result of (not the cause of) anti-semitism. The Jews were quite simply not permitted to earn a living any other way other than by money-lending (as at the time this was deemed a most dishonourable profession). Anti-semitism was enshrined in law. If money-lending was the only way Jews in the past could earn a living then who can blame them for becoming good at it? They should be admired for this.

The story of the Jewish diaspora and the fact that the Jews have done so well for themselves despite being homeless and being treated by governments and peoples as sub-human scum for centuries really should fill people with admiration for them.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 12:12 am: Edit

Vera,

You really are a frustrated prude with sexual hang-ups. The best thing you could do tonight is go out to a club, pick up a man, bring him home and have him fuck you to hell and back. It really would do you some good.

Those 'white-light' moments during orgasm when you totally lose awareness of everything around you have got to be the purest moments of Truth and reality that can possibly be experienced. Truth needs to be experienced and you'll find infinitely more Truth and meaning by getting a good fuck than by discussing the views of dead philosophers on the Absinthe Forum.


Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Indeed, most "religious" conflicts have large elements of cultural, class, and economic conflicts. I can only think of a few which were really rooted in the diferences in DOCTRINE (the Old Believers in Russia who set themselves on fire rather than use the historically-correct but non-traditional hand posture for the blessing...) It's usually just another excuse to define a "them".

(It's kind of like US politics, where the party platforms differ on only a few small details and, in practice, the parties are almost indistinguishable. You would have a tough time judging the party affiliation of a congressman by just looking at his voting record...)

And not only was Jesus a Jew, his teachings were very much in line with the teachings of several Judaic sects of the time. The religion taught by Jesus in life was nothing but a form of Judaism.

"If we control the banks, why don't I ever have any money?"

--Rachel Goldsmith (my best friend)

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Well, anti-semitism probably evolved out of jeaulousy for the jew's right to make money (in a time when christians were still prohibited to earn interest. Out of that fact, jews in germany had a capitalistic culture long before christians went into trading and the banking business. Therefore the jews were just better players in capitalism and a higher percentage of them was able to make a lot of money. So, anti-semitism in Germany was more or less the rather poor and narrow minded against the rich, open minded (also by jewish tradition). Add a little bit of fear of the different in general and it's "all the jews' fault"

Similar thing in Ireland - if you look at it closely, they're fighting about anything else than religion...

In both cases, religion was a means to group the enemy as "those anglicans", "those jews"

btw. Jesus WAS a jew - from his birth to his death he never had any other religion.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Well, yes and no. Pious Christians and Quakers were a very powerful force in the abolition movement, and lest we forget, southern black churches were the birthplace of the modern civil-rights movement in the US.

The Bible has been used both to rationalize and to condemn hatred and racism, which is appropos of this tangent. Bigots and like mean-spirited people have never needed any real philosophical or scientific foundation for their malice. Sure, they will twist anything they can to their own use, but they would likely believe the same things without the Bible or Neitzsche or Darwin.

I was just wondering last night how many anti-semites actually know anything about the teachings of Judaism, let alone that those teachings are the source of, and 99% identical to, Christianity. Or if the people throwing ptrol bombs in Belfast are really all that concerned with the question of Papal authority...

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 05:32 pm: Edit

and of course, the christian church have always been the first to fight racism...
LOL

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Recently, some fundementalist Christians were trying to get evolution removed from school curricula (no surprise), but this time, it was on the grounds that evolutionary theory promotes racism.

Because, of course, before Darwin, the races lived in perfect harmony...

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Hob,

All these thoughtful posts to add to our philosophy and truth discussion... Nietzche Schmietzche... when all the while you could have been jacking off! Let's shut the forum down and go masturbate. Yeah, that's it, that'll do us right.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:36 pm: Edit

No Morrigan, I just like a good Shag.

By Morriganlefey on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Wow Lord H - have you been going to the 'Marc Campbell School of Philosophy'?!?. That sounds an awful lot like one of his mantras...

- Morrigan

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:08 pm: Edit

The only time Truth can be actively experienced by a Man is when he shoots his load. Or by a Woman when she screams in ecstasy while being given a good seeing to. Orgasm is Truth, everything else is make believe.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Vera,

Actually it was so called 19th century developments in the field of anatomy (prior to Darwin) that were used as 'proof' of 'anglo-saxon' racial superiority. These were used much more than Darwin's work to justify racist opinions. (Diagrams of skulls of an Irishman show how it is much closer to the skull of an ape than is the skull of a good Anglo-Saxon.) This isn't proof it's just perversion and manipulation in order to back up a pre-concieved idea.

The twisting of Darwin's work by some is also such a perversion but it should not detract from his great work. Many have used and twisted Darwin's theory for all sorts of purposes, Darwin never supported such perverted twisting of his ideas and Huxley actively refuted such twistings.

Also (although you probably were being flippant) Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' is a hell of a lot more than writings about "a bunch of birdies on some island". You should read it some time, it really is quite something.

Hobgoblin

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 09:00 am: Edit

Ok boys, now switch.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:58 am: Edit

muurpppmhhh mmhph mhphh!!!

By Marc on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:50 am: Edit

words

words

words


you want the truth?

my cock in your mouth.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:38 am: Edit

Welcome to the world of NietzscheBUDDY!
He will explore Truth with you!
Join the Übermonkey as he walks, jokes, drinks, debauches, postulates and rambles on like no other cyberbot!
He even has the ability to correct your faulty logic!

Best of all, he's FREE of religious dogma!


 Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.

By _Blackjack on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:08 pm: Edit

The failing of postmodern thought is that it has forgotten the difference between the baby and the bathwater. The failing of traditional thought is that it never realized there was one.

By Anatomist1 on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Nietzsche was great because he told the truth about religion, art, philosophy... humanity. He called 'em like he saw 'em, with inspiring disregard for piety, propriety, or any kind of 'iety', for that matter.

Nietzsche was a fool because he followed his intellectual muse into the pits of hell. He exhalted his cerebral cortex and his anger and drove himself so far away from society, balance, women, and... humanity, that he had no choice but to contract into a bottleneck of madness. I see syphillus as more of a symptom than a cause in his case - same with Beethoven. They dared so much that they were bound to explode or implode, which is why they are heroes. I think we measure heroes by the extent to which they sacrifice themselves for us... in retrospect.

I, for one, am eternally grateful to these two German hardasses. Here's to you, you two magnificent, stupid fucks...

K.

By Heiko on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Where was it that I've said I 'believe' in Nietzsche? I like to read him because he's so opinionated, sarcastic, depressed, whatever. I don't like quoting Nietzsche too much because I feel silly quoting some opinionated statements that reveal much of the disillusioned, depressive man he was.

btw. there's some statements (I forgot where it was, damn - I can't quote or give any page numbers, not even the book...) where he ridicules the nationalists of his time (calls them something like narrow-minded) and says the jews did a better job to reach the aim of the Übermensch - something he was absolutely in favor of. Of course you won't find this in his sister's compilations...
I think no race or religion was better or worse in his view, it was only he didn't like people at all ;-)

By Verawench on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:30 pm: Edit

"Where did Darwin say anything about white male superiority?????"

Nowhere. Where did Jesus say anything about hating homosexuals or letting Pat Robertson represent him? I am saying that Darwin's writings about a bunch of birdies on some island somewhere served as scientific proof for other ideas spread throughout popular culture of the late 19th century.

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Heiko,

"There's still a feeling about it that "a philosopher who writes essays that everybody can read and understand cannot be good".

Next thing the locals will be discussing Zarathustra and the Ubermenschen over a pint of beer at the local pub or working men's club.
Philosopher for the masses? Gerry Stringer perhaps, Nietzsche I think not.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Heiko,

You worry me.

You sound like you have accepted the word of Nietzsche as dogma, that his word is enlightened.

Next you'll be quoting him in your dissertation.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Missthing,

I think you are mixing up advancements in technology with advancements in human cognitive evolution. The 2 things are not the same.

Homo sapiens have been evolving for 3 million years. Evolution is a gradual process of adaptation. Nietszche only died in 1900. In terms of human evolution 1900 is virtually today. Our cognitive abilities have not developed 1 jot since then. To propose that N was so far evolved ahead of his fellow man that we can catch up with him in 100 years is ridiculous. The differences between our cognitive abilities today and that of people 100 years ago is zero. If we are developed enough to 'appreciate' N today then so were people 100 years ago. 100 years ago isn't even history, my grandmother (passed away 10 years ago) was born before then.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Vera,

Where did Darwin say anything about white male superiority????? There's certainly nothing in 'Origin of the species' that even hints at anything like this. Please show me where Darwin supports white male supremacy, I'd really like to know.

Nietszche on the other hand could be interpreted as such (the Nazis certainly viewed him in this light) and his links with Wagner certainly add some weight to this view, but I don't think this view of Nietszche is either fair or truthful.

We cannot view and judge the works of those in the past in light of current moral and ethical frameworks. Accepted morals and ethics change according to the needs and values of the time. We need to view works of those in the past in light of the morals and ethics of the time, not in light of the morals and ethics of today.

Hobgoblin

By Pataphysician on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Stuffy man to Fields: "You're drunk!"

Fields: "And you're an idiot. Tomorrow I'll be sober, but you will still be an idiot."

By Thegreenimp on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit

I prefer W.C. Field's writing, at least he got a laugh out of his work.

"It's a crazy old world, and a man is lucky if he gets out of it alive"
W.C. Fields circa 1934
Regards
Jay

By Heiko on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 11:47 am: Edit

At universities and amongst scholars of philology and philosophy, Nietzsche was mostly considered a cheap provocateur, a traitor, kind of.
In addition to that, he himself wasn't very good at selling himself and his work to the general public. His work gained most of its popularity after he was in the mental asylum (and dead soon after) when his sister started to commercialize his work, compile essays (like the compilation "the will to power") and even edit his work. She was it who made his work adoptable for the nazis.

btw. I got the feeling that, at university, the philosohpic society still thinks of Nietzsche in a rather negative way because he became popular with the masses. There's still a feeling about it that "a philosopher who writes essays that everybody can read and understand cannot be good".
They say the same about Sloterdijk. Probably they're only jeaulous because they only sell two copies of their own books a year ;-)

By Verawench on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 11:13 am: Edit

"I've just realised that this discussion thread has managed to remain predominantly true to its title throughout the changes in subject matter..."

Ahahaha... Missthing, you pun mistress you.

Nietzsche's ideas were very much accepted and recognized in his time... they went along nicely with Darwin's theories to support the evolutionary superiority of the white male. I'm currently reading "Idols of Perversity", a book on cultural perceptions of women in the late 19th century - much of the misogyny of that time supported itself with the ideas of contemporary philosophies, not those of the past.

By Pataphysician on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 10:35 am: Edit

Nietzsche is watered-down Max Stirner.

By Missthing on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 09:40 am: Edit

I've just realised that this discussion thread has managed to remain predominantly true to its title throughout the changes in subject matter...

Far as I was aware, evolution IS adapting to our environment - cognitively or otherwise. Although I guess you could argue that once we started adapting the environment to us, we took a very dangerous step which has caused all manner of complications and resulted in us requiring to evolve ever more rapidly.

From the meme theory view it's the memes that are having to evolve and mutate faster & more aggressively though. Just think. In a few decades we may have so significantly enhanced our cognitive abilities (thanks to genetic engineering & neural implants), that philosphers may only be in vogue for a few days, not years.

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 09:11 am: Edit

'True visionaries very rarely are given the seal of approval by their peers or contemporaries, and must wait, often beyond their lifespan, for the general cognitive "evolution" of the species to catch up with them.'

So Nietzsche was superior in the evolutionary sense and the human race has only now caught up with him. This really is putting him on a pedestle as true Superman. What about old Plato, at around 400BC he must truly have been ahead of the rest of the human race developmentally speaking, much more so than Nietzsche considering the time he lived in.

There is no evidence that the human race has continued to evolve cognitively throughout time. We adapt to our environments and alter accordingly. There was as much brain power around when the pyramids were built as there is today.

Nietzsche is just another dead philosopher who happens to be have been in vogue since the 60's (perhaps the meme theory offers an explanation here). Sooner or later someone else will be in fashion, maybe old Zeno of Citium will get his turn?

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:53 am: Edit

Nietzsche did build on the ideas of others, notably Schopenhauer (of whom Nietzsche was at one time a very passionate follower). This devotion to Schopenhauer also moulded Nietzsche's antagonism to Hegel's ideas (because Schopenhauer absolutely hated Hegel). And what about Nietzsche's obsession with Wagner who regularly pops up in his writings. And then there's Socrates and Christ and Goethe. For such an original thinker he had quite an obsession with the ideas of others.

Nietzsche was no doubt an intelligent and clever man (as were most other notable philosophers before and after him) but he really was no more different than other 'anti-philosophy' philosophers. I fail to see why so many (in the past few years) put him up on a pedestle as if his writings were the Ubermensch.

Hobgoblin

By Missthing on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 04:38 am: Edit

True visionaries very rarely are given the seal of approval by their peers or contemporaries, and must wait, often beyond their lifespan, for the general cognitive "evolution" of the species to catch up with them. But I feel that most of the people who've changed the way we interpret our existence would not have been able to do so without first developing cognitive skills to challenge the dominant paradigm. Universities, despite being based on a foundation of tradition and adherence to accepted ways of thinking, also serve as the sounding board for the real changes to happen.

By Heiko on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 04:14 am: Edit

"But Nietzsche is most certainly now part of the academic tradition with academia's seal of approval."

No doubt about that.

Was he more independent in his thoughts? Well, you can't think totally different from everything that has been said before. Even if you have your own, free ideas these sometimes overlap with things already said. The less you know what has been said already, the more you can be sure you're having your own thoughts.
That's why studying philosophy kind of kills your ability to think on your own - you KNOW too much about other's thoughts and start comparing all the time...

Nietzsche has at least something that makes me believe he did not totally make up his thoughts from traditional philosohpy. He doesn't quote all the time, he writes clear, opinionated statements, therefore he's often referred to as a "philosopher for the masses". Clear disrespect by the oh-so-academic-I-can-quote-200-philosophers-by-heart philosophic society.

-end of rant- ;-)

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 03:43 am: Edit

But Nietzsche is most certainly now part of the academic tradition with academia's seal of approval. He's also become very much in vogue over recent decades. He's a great source of ideas and quotes for those lacking in their own original ideas.

And was Nietzsche any more independant in his thinking than most others? Would Nietzsche have formulated his ideas without the influence of eminent scholars like Wagner and Schopenhaur? What influence did his antagonism to Hegel play? What part did Socrates play with Nietzsche? Or even the Bible?

Hobgoblin

By Heiko on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 02:19 am: Edit

You can only utter your own, original ideas when you have at least a PhD in philosophy - but at that time you're so used to uttering ideas by quoting renowned knowledge that you probably won't do it...

Anatomist, Hobgoblin - I very much agree with both of you!

IMO there are a few geniuses who manage to easily do all the work which is necessary to become professor of philosophy but still have their very own thoughts and ideas. Look for philosophers who work on logic and semantics (they also need to be mathematical geniuses). If you take philosophers who specialized (f.e.) in aesthetics and classic aristotelean philosophy - those will be very likely people who only love to hear themselves talk...

btw. guess why Nietzsche liked his work as a philosopher better than his university job as a professor for literature... and guess why he wasn't accepted by the 'real' philosophers of his time...

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:54 am: Edit

Vera,

"in my undergrad studies I was taught quite the opposite...we were given works and papers by renowned scholars and given free reign to disect them and question their theories, then to propose our own."

But does this result in original ideas or does it result in ideas that are based on the ideas of the 'eminent scholars' whose ideas you have disected?

Universities are not about generating new ideas, they are about defending and perpetuating the notion of the academic tradition. Ideas are only accepted as valid if they have the ideas of others (who have been given the seal of approval by academia) as their foundations, and these foundations have the ideas of others as their foundations. This is all about protecting the positions and percieved heritage of academics, and protecting academic hierarchy, it has nothing to do with learning.

It's sad when an idea is only accepted as valid if it can be backed up by a quote. Try writing your dissertation, pack it with great original ideas backed up by strong arguments but leave out the quotes from renowned scholars. What mark do you think you'd get?

Forget original ideas, if you want to get a good grade in your degree then just tow the line, tug your forelock (academically speaking) and fill your dissertation with endless amounts of quotes from those academia has deemed worthy.

Hobgoblin

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 05:21 pm: Edit

I survived getting a philosophy degree. I stopped at the BA because the advanced degrees are all about excessive nitpicking and bookwormery, and jockeying for professorships. I didn't see any evidence of wisdom or suprising and desirable ways of being in most grad students or professors. In fact, it seemed to me that whatever issues the various philosophical factions were divided over couldn't be all that fundamental since they all lived very similar academic lives. One exception was a quaker man who specialized in non-standard logics who was currently under indictment for not paying the exact portion of his federal taxes that correlated with the proportion of federal military expenditures. All in all, I enjoyed philosophy more when I was reading it on my own in high school and early college. If I was looking for a real philosopher, I wouldn't look in a philosophy department.

One notable drawback to studying philosophy that is not much advertised by University departments is that it can decrease the quality of the rest of your life. Knowing how to think, write, and argure with studied clarity and logic makes it very difficult to get along in the real world. Along with your diploma, they should supply you with a ball peen hammer and instructions on which areas of the skull you can whack to reverse the damage they caused.

K.

By Heiko on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 03:34 pm: Edit

That reminds me of a teacher who once told us to tell her what we didn't like about her teaching. She really forced us to come up with any critique we could think about.
Then someone said something (and it was really true, good and fair critique) - she got so mad at us, you won't believe it...

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Then came the double-whammy, the day of critiques. Everything you were encouraged to think outside of and make your own got challenged, picked apart and graded down.

Real tough-love teaching.

But look at me now.

By Heiko on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Hobgoblin,

this must be a premiere: I totally, absolutely, 110% agree with you!

In my eyes, a philosopher who is worth being listened to is the one who was able to survive university and still has his own, independent thoughts.

Of course you're given the opportunity to disect the traditional scholars and propose your own ideas. But for the sake of your time (and your grades) you will soon start to underline every one of your "own" ideas with something that has been said before by someone well known and respected. Undermining your own thoughts with well known argments will make you an A-student in philosophy, radically trying to think different from everything that has been thought before will sooner or later give you the image of a stupid dumbass who just wastes time by thinking you're gonna be better than the old masters.
Like everything else, this matter is not black or white, it's somewhere in between. But I see a problem in it for sure. Philosophy begins with learning so many theories from others that you might lose your capability to have independent ideas.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 03:21 pm: Edit

At CCS (an art school) they frowned on indivduals not coming to their own philosophical conclusions. Thinking for your self was encouraged, repeating history was not.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Damn where's that working edit feature?

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 02:54 pm: Edit

You are kind too.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 02:53 pm: Edit

You're "KIND" I mean!

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 02:35 pm: Edit

CHONGER!!! Come defend yourself!

By Verawench on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Speaking of university education encouraging traditional philosophies of great thinkers... in my undergrad studies I was taught quite the opposite. In my art history lectures in particular we were given works and papers by renowned scholars and given free reign to disect them and question their theories, then to propose our own.

Now, survey courses were another matter, of course, due to time constraints, and often watered things down. But even Anthropology 301 was a very self conscious class, questioning the ability of a researcher to objectively describe and capture the ways of a culture.

So from personal experience I think things are changing... What I think remains stale and old fashioned as ever is the methods of acquiring and spreading knowledge, as well as the methods of arriving at knowledge (i.e.: what exactly IS worth knowing).

Wench

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 01:17 pm: Edit

The meme theory is interesting.

I believe that one reason why we view dogma as we do and embrace idealogies and theories readily is a result of how we are educated. Education (at all levels but particularly at Universities) encourages us to understand, analyze and quote the philosophies and theories of 'experts' and 'great minds'. What it doesn't do is encourage original thought. Indeed it actively discourages this.

Hence our society is full of people who can quote Nietzsche, Marx, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, Buddha, and Jesus Christ. People embrace the ready made philosophies and ideologies of others when they should be developing their own ideas. People think of themselves as intelligent thinkers simply because they can analyse and regurgitate the ideas of others.

Hobgoblin

By Missthing on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Personally, I prefer meme theory, it's very good for exposing and understanding dogma.

And for those who need faith but are afflicted with the PoMo disease then the Church of the God Who Makes No Difference may be a good option.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Richard Kern's HERB PHARM JUNKIE
There's no louche in that???

By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Look at that damn Robert Downey Jr.! Maybe they should pass a law making cocaine legal for him only.

By Heiko on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 03:15 am: Edit

"Y'all sound like the high school philosophy club."

Maybe because we were talking about philosophy?

By Verawench on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 11:01 am: Edit

"How often do we adopt a particular external dogma ourselves (be it marxism, socialism, feminism or whatever) and then make this dogma a part of our being (so much so that we often feel duty-bound to passionately defend it)?"

I myself prefer to be a colorful hodge podge of dogmas than to wash them away altogether. As far as defending viewpoints, I'd much rather challenge someone's opinion for the sake of exposing the opposite argument (one always exists). No point in fighting over beliefs, I don't see much glory in convincing someone of one relative thing or another.

I also have a thing against people who dig for hypocrisy in someone's system of values and beliefs. Nothing is 100% pure. Not even Ted's absinthe.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 10:09 am: Edit

"Y'all sound like the high school philosophy club."

Which High School?

Hobgoblin

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 07:31 am: Edit

"If you wew a twee, what twee would you be?"

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 06:59 am: Edit

Y'all sound like the high school philosophy club.

By Heiko on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 04:41 am: Edit

"or at least undress ourselves as much as we can"

Rupert succeeded in that aspect ;-)

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 12:26 am: Edit

I'm looking at the man in the mirror...

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 12:13 am: Edit

"Being free of dogmas, "religions" of all shapes and forms is not possible. There's always that pesky "believing in nothing is believing in something" argument."

A very good point.

But rather than looking for and embracing and defending various dogmas (be they secular, religious or otherwise) and finding comfort and meaning in these dogmas, we should be seeking to rid ourselves of dogma. How often do we adopt a particular external dogma ourselves (be it marxism, socialism, feminism or whatever) and then make this dogma a part of our being (so much so that we often feel duty-bound to passionately defend it)?

How can we (and others) know what we truly are until we strip ourselves ideologically naked (or at least undress ourselves as much as we can)?

Hobgoblin

By Melinelly on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 07:54 pm: Edit

right again, m'lord Hobby =) then again, to take it further outside the circle, political philosphies are indeed as you say a form of religion, but at least they are more along the lines of what i consider truth: a religion OF the people (even if only a limited number).

and vera, also so true... my dogma is "no dogma is free of itself"... which, as you say, is in itself constricted by its own dogmatic essence.

like i (and heiko) have said before, belief is everything. truth is only as real as the beliefs that hold it to be so... be they "religious," "scientific," or "spiritual..."

By Verawench on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Lord,

Being free of dogmas, "religions" of all shapes and forms is not possible. There's always that pesky "believing in nothing is believing in something" argument.

Parallel it with absinthe (see the current Segarra thread) - no matter how pure or popular the product, it all comes down to subjective tastes.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 11:55 am: Edit

Melinely,

Let's not forget the faith that many also place in various political philosophies, no matter how false the profit or slanted the word. When it comes down to it political philosophies are no more than secular 'religions', they fulfil the same role.

To be truly free we need to rid ourselves of these as well.

Hobgoblin

By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 09:17 am: Edit


"Every little girl
should have a daddy
like Charlie"
-Squeaky Frohm

By Melinelly on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 09:02 am: Edit

precisely. which is where faith comes into play, and why so many people need religion, no matter how false the prophet or slanted the word.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 08:58 am: Edit

"'tis but our prejudices that get in the way."

Indeed, but how difficult it is to strip away these prejudices. How difficult it is when we believe these prejudices to be part of the very nature of our being. How difficult it is when we believe these very prejudices to represent truth.

Hobgoblin

By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 08:54 am: Edit

Predjudice or blockage.

I can't see where the body is buried but Aunt Charmaine can hold a bloody sweater and tell the detectives where to look.

By Melinelly on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 08:42 am: Edit

all things are true becuase belief makes them so. we live in truth every waking moment. 'tis but our prejudices that get in the way. there is no truth beyond belief, and yet that is where all truth lies.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 03:27 am: Edit

Heiko,

That depends on whether you consider Truth to be individual and constrained in size by the physical capacity of an individual human brain, or whether you consider Truth to be much more significant than any individual. Do we use our brain alone to search for Truth, what about our minds?

"I think, definitely NO!"

How can you think definitely no. Either you know that it is "definitely no", or you think that it is "probably no". If you know "definitely no" then you have indeed found the Truth.

Hobgoblin

By Heiko on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 02:24 am: Edit

Can we ever find THE truth?

I think, definitely NO! THE Truth would be total knowledge of everything in this universe and its relation to everything else at every possible moment. I don't think you could pack that into a human brain (maybe as a short 'feeling', but not as scientific knowledge). Truth is your truth, the world is your world, your own chemistry, so to speak...

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:45 am: Edit

Good point Marc. Our brain chemistry, like all other things is constantly changing. Does that mean that Truth too is constantly changing and if so how can Man ever find it?

By Marc on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:39 am: Edit

lord,

life is altered brain chemistry, moment to moment.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:26 am: Edit

But Marc, did it change your life in a deeper mystical sense or did it change your life by simply altering your brain chemistry?

How can you know?

Hobgoblin
(No offence intended whatsoever)

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:19 am: Edit

"Can something be black and white at once?"

Most certainly. Black or white do not exist, only shades of grey.

By Marc on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:18 am: Edit

lord,

LSD changed my life in beautiful and magnificent
ways. Actually, it didn't change my life, it introduced me to life in a LARGE SENSE.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:13 am: Edit

"psychotropics have been part of man's mystical search for thousands of years"

But do psychotropics really help with man's mystical search or are they intoxicants which cloud the mind and prevent calm, clear vision?

By Heiko on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:07 am: Edit

"psychotropics have been part of man's mystical search for thousands of years"

tell the government, not us...
we (at least some of us) already know - but does it make us less scared? Not really, less square, maybe...
But that's not the point Don and Mr. Rabbit want to make, I think.
I'm having a dual standpoint once more (sigh...) - I read what Don and Mr. Rabbit say and think "yeah, right", but on the other hand I think different. How can that be? Can something be black and white at once? hmmmm...
This everyday philosophy is brought to you by waste-your-time bros. (that is me and my schizophrenic other self) ;-)

By Marc on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:06 am: Edit

vera,

check it out. how'd you like that rooting around in yer peach-fuzzed-meat-pit-of-mortal-delight?

By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 01:01 am: Edit

Look into my eyes, GOFUCKYOUSEFHIRRBIRRY!!!

By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 12:59 am: Edit

That's Mr. Wong silly!

Little WOng

By Marc on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 12:56 am: Edit

head,

my cock's a lot bigger than that. Ask vera and kallisti.

By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 12:52 am: Edit

Pee on you!

By Marc on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 12:38 am: Edit

stop being such scared little men. psychotropics have been part of man's mystical search for thousands of years. instead of running scared, we should be resurrecting, encouraging and defending this wonderful tradition of self exploration.

what a bunch of fucking squares you motherfuckers are. i piss on you

By Mr_Rabbit on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 10:58 pm: Edit

The danger, if danger there be, of discussing drugs here lies in unwanted attention it may attract. If the FDA or DEA have the resources (and we don't know if they do or don't) it would be pretty damn simple for them to run an automatic search on certain keywords. That is a hell of a lot likelier than a human agent stumbling in here.

If they start out searching for a particular drug and find a new substance to demonize, that would be bad. I know I've said this before, and it ain't probably going to happen, but we could probably discuss such things much more safely by defeating such a keyword search.

Deliberate mis-spelling is an easy thing to do. Thats why script kiddies type 'h4(k3r' instead of 'hacker.'

But even such a simple method as 's-alvia div-inorum and herowin' might help.

Maybe, though, I should just go have a glass of 4bs1nth3 ;-)

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 11:05 am: Edit

Kalisti,

This forum couldn't wish for a better administrator than yourself. You never tell us to shut up and you've never get involved in slanging matches.

If you drink only a dozen glasses of absinthe a year then you have my respect. I drink a lot less of everything (including absinthe) than I used to, and I intend to drink less and less and less. I've always been opposed to heavy drinking despite drinking heavily myself if that makes any sense.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 10:54 am: Edit

Verawench,

"Agreed. But I don't especially like the idea of those particular experts monitoring what we should and should not discuss on this forum. That's Kallisti's job."

I entirely agree with you. I for one don't wish to be monitored or censored and as far as I'm aware Kallisti has a healthy easy going attitude to what we all say. She's always totally impartial, which is a bloody hard thing to be considering those who frequent this forum.

On the other hand if some on the forum believe that certain topics shouldn't be discussed then they have every right to tell you as often as they wish. You on the other hand have every right to stick 2 fingers up to them if you feel that way inclined.

I have some sympathy for the point of view that for our own self interests we shouldn't discuss illegal 'drugs' etc. However nobody can make you shut up if you don't want to, they can only try to persuade you to want to shut up.

At the end of the day however you should stick by your guns, discuss what you like and say what you think and damn those who disagree with you. Put your own opinions first and others opinions second. If you're not true to yourself you end up being dishonest with everyone else.

Hobgoblin

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 10:24 pm: Edit

H,

Bodybuilders use some of those exercises, but they generally use more sets and reps than powerlifters. I'm not necessarily knocking your fitness routine, but I'm not going to sit around and pretend it the same as something it isn't, or that it's the most effective way to achieve your fitness objectives. If you like what you are doing, the results you're getting, and you aren't getting injured, that's great. If you want to try something different, to alleviate boredom or get better results, that's where I come in. It sounds like you've already got a handle on the hardest part: you workout regularly and independently. Just don't eat any hydrogenated oils or Olestra, and you'll be fine.

K.

By Heiko on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Anatomist,
I guess it was only a misunderstanding - with my "equipment" there's no way to do real isolation exercises. Every exercise I can do with a little imagination and two weights includes some more muscle-groups. I'm actually doing pull-ups, squats, crunches and so on. I'd need some more weight for good bench-pressing tho.
But aren't these all typical bodybuilding exercises (especially bench-pressing)? I thought so...

Blackjack,
good answer - I totally agree (it's real hard not to say something about certain subjects when I'd really like to - but in this case, you already said everything better than I could have). Only one (very neutral...) addition for Tavarua: a statistic of the German federal police about 290something thousand seized objects doesn't mean anything and was no believable field study? IMO 0.0% out of almost 300,000 makes any occurance of the substance in question rather unbelievable...

By Verawench on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Tonight on SMACKDOWN!!!

Blackjack Bob vs. Luscious L'anz!!

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Head's mind-fuck-du-jour.

Blackjack you flatter me.

It's all related though. One big bloody symphony of colliding boxcars. That's my opinion. What the heck do I know. I just drink and blather on about anything and nothing.

Oops an opinion! Feel the burn.

Gotta go, SMACKDOWN is coming on.

By Frater_Carfax on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 04:16 pm: Edit

I'm almost regretting putting up the original salvia posting now....

But essentially Don's recent post has hit the nail on my original intent behind this.

There was no intent on my part to start a drug effects thread or imply there was a link to absinthe like effects, rather that it was worthwhile noting the behaviours of regulatory authorities like the FDA with respects to legal herbal substances, that at the drop of a hat, can switch legal status. We are consuming products which are formulated with a myriad of different herbal substances, which means there is always a chance that for one reason or another, a change in status of a herb or a constituent of a herbal extract, may suddenly alter just what we do and do not have access to- and absinthe is but one product that could be affected. It is all to easy for us to say "bugger the consequnce, I'll import it anyway", but this doesn't carry water when the manufacturers of the products decide to play ball with the law too and either reformulate, stop production or restrict customer access.

Granted- many of us may be obtaining our absinthe on the premise that there is unclear law, lack of enforcement and don't care either way- personally I would prefer to have the legality confirmed in Australia - regulation based on bad science gives me the shits.

Make no mistake, authorities do look for new substance to restrict- at work I am currently dealing with a case where the authorities want to restrict access to over a dozen species of medicinal herbs because they "COULD" become adulterated with a toxic herb if the suppliers don't have good Quality Assurance practices- not because the herbs themselves are toxic.

I'll get off the soapbox now.....

By _Blackjack on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Re: talking drugs

f we were sitting around talking about how cool it is to do illegak drugs, or swapping recipes for bathtub meth, or, probably worst, talking about how absinthe is just like LSD and how you can make the highest thijone brew, then I think we would be asking for trouble.

As it is, most of the discussion has been objective discussion of policy or of scientific matters, quite in line with other political and scientific discussions we have all the time. Only an idiot would read these posts and think we were promoting drug abuse, or that we assoiciate absinthe with the recreational use of psychedelics. And an idiot would think that in the first place, regardless of what we said.

I do understand Don's concern, but we are NOT discussing absinthe in this thread. Any discussion of the science or politics of drugs is clearly as off-topic as Head's mind-fuck-du-jour or the economic/political battles or the talk about movies.

I spoke up in this thread to dissociate absinthe from both regular sage and absinthe. I only went of on other stuff when people started making factual errors.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 03:10 pm: Edit


Quote:

"In 1977, Twycross conducted a randomized study comparing oral heroin and oral morphine in 700 terminally ill cancer patients. Heroin was found to be comparable in all clinical effects at equianalgesic levels with morphine.”



Morphine is not very active, orally, either (it is half as effective as oxycodone (Percocet)). It usually administered IV, IM or SC. Moreover, taken intramuscular or intravenous, heroin is twice as effectve as morphine, so the fact that it is only equianalgesic with morphine PO supports my argument.

5mg heroin IM = 10mg morphine IM = 60mg morphine PO = 60mg heroin PO = 30mg of oxycodone PO

http://www.usp.org/reporting/review/rev_046b.htm

So, you would have to take 12 times as much heroin orally as you would intramuscularly to get the same effect. Compare that with methadone, where you would only have to double the dose.

Sorry, man, but you are arguing against established fact. Heroin is not very active, taken orally. Bill Burroughs ought to know...


Quote:

I don’t know how to explain it scientifically,




That might be because the idea isn't supported by the science.


Quote:

but think of it as the “speedball” affect.




A speedball is a mixture of heroin and cocaine. The cocaine serves to counteract some of the sedating properties of the heroin without interfering with the euphoric and analgesic effects, thus altering the quality of the experience.

Mixing MDMA and amphetamine is not comperable, because MDMA does EVERYTHING that amphetamine does in the first place, and, IN ADDITION, creates a unique euphoria and sensory distortion. There is nothing that amphetamines could do to you that the MDMA isn't already doing. And once the MDMA has depleted your serotonin stores, nothing is going to get you "back up" except time.


Quote:

I can tell you this, there are pills out there that put out a real “dopey” feel, it is quite uncommon, and has been for the past few years, but it happens.



This could easily be explained by the wide use of dextromethorphan as an adulterant or substitute, or by the fact that the effects of MDMA vary with the person's mindset at the time they take it.


Quote:

Doesn’t it seem a little strange that several people have named every drug under the sun, claiming that they go into MDMA pills, but think that it is never cut with H, why, it would be pure arrogance to say otherwise.



It isn't strange when you consider that MOST of the adulterants (caffeine, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, dextromethorphan, aspirin) are cheap and legal, and that the others are still cheaper (amphetamine, piperazine) or no more expensive and similar in effect (MDA, PMA, ketamine). With heroin, you are talking about an adulterant which is MORE expensive, and would have few effects. Now, if that alone wasn't a good reason to doubt, you add the fact that all of these others HAVE been found among numerous pills tested, and heroin hasn't, and the conclusion is pretty clear.

Remember, the HEROIN you buy on the street often doesn't have much heroin in it. Why would the E? (I did find a report of heroin being cut with Ketamine, as opposed to the other way around...)

By Admin on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Hmmm, I've been ignoring this thread up until now.

Other than mildly touching upon a subject, we have steered pretty clear of the discussion of drugs. The salvia one was reasonable to bring up, because of its relation to sage etc ... but we could leave it at that.

I'm no expert (most of what I know is from a little research and ALOT of listening here) but for the record, I don't drink more than a dozen or so glasses of absinthe in an entire year (now if I had a nice flask, that might change, hehe). And most of that is for reviewing. The rest I whip out for special occasions, or educational purposes.

You must remember, that up until sometime in 99, even the now prolific spanish brands were extreeemely hard to find, no one was shipping to the US, and the plebes were running around making the original baggot faq recipe. The fact that the folks here knew what they did came not from imbibing, but good old fashion research and elbow grease.

Uh, Hob ... just went off on a tangent. Heh.

By Artemis on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 01:30 pm: Edit

"Do we really think this forum is a well of knowledge on absinthe?"

Yes I do, or I wouldn't have said so. Of course, it's only so in a *relative* sense. There's more knowledge here than on sites that class absinthe with poisons and hallucinogens, and one of the things that sets this site apart from those sites is that people don't come here to talk about drugs. At least usually not.

"How many people on this forum have drank more than a handful of cases of absinthe in their entire lives?"

If drinking it made you knowledgable about it, a bunch of bums lying in the gutters of France would have been experts. Dr. Arnold is regarded as an expert when apparently he never touched a drop. It is claimed Delahaye drinks no alcohol of any kind.

The bigger the gap that can be placed betweeen absinthe and illegal drugs, the better off we are. If this is not obvious without further argument, I really don't know how to explain it.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Blackjack,

I'm not talking about sitting in front of lights to boost my serotonin, I'm talking about waking up to a gradual increase in light instead of an alarm clock. It seems doubtful to me that it would do anything drastic to my chemical balance. I suspect that it feels good because people and their evolutionary precursors have been waking up that way for millenia. Of course, people have also been waking up to the equivalent to a scream in the dark too, but with a very different physiological response...

K.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Heiko,

Either you aren't listening, or you are disingenuously trying to gloss over the differences between what we are saying. Bodybuilding is nothing like HIIT. Bodybuilding exercises that attempt to isolate muscle groups cannot provide the systemic intensity necessary to qualify as a high intensity interval.

If you insist on using weights, and you really want to build mass, you've got to ditch the bodybuilding paradigm. Isolation exercises are for advanced bodybuilders who are fine-tuning their proportions. If you want to build mass you've got to work as many muscle groups at the same time as possible. Powerlifting-type exercises are the best: heavy, low-rep squats, bench presses, deadlifts, pullups, and dips. A couple of 20 pound dumbells aren't going to cut it.

K.

By Verawench on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 12:12 pm: Edit

"There are a very small number of experts on this forum"

Agreed. But I don't especially like the idea of those particular experts monitoring what we should and should not discuss on this forum. That's Kallisti's job. It's silly paranoia. Unless we know for certain there is some outside authority interest in this forum, why try to curtail discussion on a single thread about a single topic?

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 11:11 am: Edit

WENCH

If after all I have said you have not even understood a single participle of it, I have to conclude you are not very bright.

You are hung up on a "i can talk about drugs if I wanna" rap, and entirely miss the point.

It's illusory to plead that salvia divinorum is legal and absinthe isn't. S.divinorum is on their hit list, per the posts that started this thread, and absinthe, thusfar, isn't.

Let's keep it that way.

You are not being helpful.

Amd I spit on your assumption that I am acting from venal motives. You assume too much.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 11:01 am: Edit

Do we really think this forum is a well of knowledge on absinthe?

How many people on this forum have drank more than a handful of cases of absinthe in their entire lives?

Most people on this forum I would guess will have drank much more volume and variety of wine or beer in their lifetime than absinthe. They will probably know what wine and beer they like, be able to distinguish between good and bad wine and beer and talk with a little bit of knowledge about country of origin, variety of grape etc. Does that make them experts on wine and beer? I think not.

There are a very small number of experts on this forum and as with all experts they are usually involved in the business of manufacturing, marketing and supplying the products they are experts on. The rest of us (who make up the vast bulk of the forum) are no more than 'Joe public' who like a drop of absinthe now and then, and who like to shoot our mouths off about it (and most other things).

By _Blackjack on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 11:00 am: Edit

My post from lat night never made it thru, so I'll sum up:

I used bright-light therapy this winter, primarily because I was working an absurd shift and pretty much never saw the sun. I can't say it had in obvious posisitve effect, but I did manage to keep a pretty consistant sleep schedule despite a rotating dead-of-night shift. Part of that, however, is the Wellbutrin. It's not perfect, but in the year-and-a-half I've been on it, I've slept more normally than I ever have in my life. I actually wake up on my own refreshed, instead of wanting to sleep for 30 hours at a stratch if left to my own devices...

In addition to serotonin, light therapy is theorized (because most on neurochemistry is still iffy), has an effect on the regulation melatonin, the horomonal neurotransmitter involved in regulating sleep. One of the things that exposure to light does is slow down the production of melatonin, which reduces the feelings of sleepiness during the day. Your body requires darkness to efficiently produce melatonin, which is why sleeping in a well-lit room can throw off your sleep schedule as well as not getting enough light.

That being said, unless your sleep cycle or mood is actually impaired or, like me, you work a night shift, one shold be cautious about trying to "tweak" ones neurotransmitter levels. The body has numerous feedback mechanisms designed to maintain optimal transmission levels. Malfunction in these regulation mechanisms may be at the root of some mental illness, but in healthy people, an increase in serotonin levels may simply lead the body to slow down enogenous production or downregulate receptor sites. At best you get no effect, at worst, you may produce the opposite effect you were looking for. (This is an issue in psychopharmacology as well, which is why most modern drugs attempt to tweak the regulatory mechanisms rather than the transmitter levels.)

Too little serotonin (or dopamine or norepinephrine, which are more my problem) is a problem, but so is too much. No illness is so simple as a "serotinin deficiency." Mood and sleep disorders are caused by complex and ill-understood dysfunctions in the body's self-regulating mechanisms. If it was as simple as just boosting serotonin levels, Prozac would start working the day you take it. It, however, ususally takes about a month, perhaps because the boost in serotonin activates other mechanisms which eventually put the brain closer to a healthy balance. If you HAVE a healthy balance, don't mess with it...

By Tavarua on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 10:58 am: Edit

“Um, thats not oral”

Um, this is.

“In 1977, Twycross conducted a randomized study comparing oral heroin and oral morphine in 700 terminally ill cancer patients. Heroin was found to be comparable in all clinical effects at equianalgesic levels with morphine.”
(http://www.nursing.uiowa.edu/sites/PedsPain/Opioids/Heroint.htm)

“That is neither here nor there, however, since the serotonin depletion is what happens AFTER the trip is over.”

And this is because, it is being depleted while the drug is being used.

“Anyway, there is nothing "mellow" about what MDMA does to your system, and it doesn't need any boost. It had been studid extensively in animals and no aumenting drug has ever been necissary to produce the sterotypic changes in behavior.”

This may be true, but I am speaking of the affect produced, psychoactive at the time of consumption, not the damage done to the body. Also, you keep saying that I am implying that you “need” a boost. I have repeatedly said that you do not NEED the boost, I am saying that it is an extreme elevation of MDMA on its own.

“Cutting MDMA with amphetamine would produce a weaker trip with more speedy effects. It might be desirable from an economic point of view (methamohetamine being cheaper than MDMA) but not one of enhancing the psychedelic effects.”

Not weaker at all, just different. It is much stronger because it is pulling your body in two different directions, hence, “rolling”, taking from roller coaster affect. You are up, then down, then up, then down, etc, etc, etc. I don’t know how to explain it scientifically, but think of it as the “speedball” affect.

“And while I have heard rumors of E being cut with, or substituted with, heroin, but I've never heard anyone say that was a common thing, let alone a good one.”

This was my mistake. I should have pointed out that the majority of time, it is cut with something speedy, and that it is rarely cut with H. I can tell you this, there are pills out there that put out a real “dopey” feel, it is quite uncommon, and has been for the past few years, but it happens. Doesn’t it seem a little strange that several people have named every drug under the sun, claiming that they go into MDMA pills, but think that it is never cut with H, why, it would be pure arrogance to say otherwise. Of course it has been done, these pills do circulate, on occasion. But, as you have said, there is not a whole lot of scientific research, at least in report form, on what X is cut with, at least not yet. I will look into some more though.

Heiko,

Always trying to calm the fight, you’re a good guy, but I am not done yet.

“Salvinorin A in a pure and extracted form is supposedly one of the most psychoactive substances you can get. It is only effective for about half an hour ("businessman's trip"...),”

Sorry if I took this out of context, but it does seem like you are speaking a drug that is very similar to Ketamine, as I have never tried it, I am ignorant of its affects.

By Verawench on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 10:52 am: Edit

"If we are branded as a nest of drug heads, then anything we attempt to do in the way of correcting the bad rap of absinthe falls on deaf ears"

I don't think Blackjack's quoting of scientific abstracts about a legal herb constitutes a bunch of drug head talk. Also, a few of us on this thread went to some length to explain there is no link between absinthe's "effects" and salvia.

And why are we so terribly worried about the perception people have of absinthe? I understand that for Don keeping absinthe as squeaky clean as possible means safe sales, but the stuff is still illegal. Salvia is not. I suspect any "authorities" out there would be more interested in the discussion of something that's already outlawed than of something that's not.

And as for absinthe's reputation, any half-wit who takes his/her time to read this forum will realize it doesn't drive you mad, it doesn't make you high as a kite, though from what you good people write on here sometimes, they might suspect it does generate a bit of paranoia.

Wench

By Heiko on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 10:08 am: Edit

"...doing intervals of 30-60 sec. at your absoulute maximum intensity level, with rests of 10-30 sec. in between."

This is what muscle training should be as well - only with (theoretically) only one muscle at maximum intensity.
btw. I don't go to a fitness studio and have no machines except two 10kg weights. That's enough, you're right, I don't need the hell of a machine-park (yet?)

Andy, I really try to eat more - but without moving I can't gain any weight because I'm not really hungry then. I've turned into a calory-counter recently: "Nah, not enough calories, I take something else" :-)

By Germanandy on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 09:48 am: Edit

heiko, if you want more bodymass, eat more fat and don't move yor ass!
that works, look at me ;-)

andy

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 09:40 am: Edit

Yep, Artemis, that's the rhapsody all right. Perhaps you sing it more sweetly than I do.

By Artemis on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 09:35 am: Edit


Quote:

"If you wanted restraint in mentioning illegal or semi-illegal herbs, why not tell us to dismantle this forum? This place is a well of knowledge for any authorities seeking resources on absinthe."

I think this vastly overrates this forum.




Possibly, but if there are ANY wells of knowledge on the subject on the Internet, this is for damn sure the deepest one. The fact this forum is not everything it could be is irrelevant. If we are branded as a nest of drug heads, then anything we attempt to do in the way of correcting the bad rap of absinthe falls on deaf ears. I believe that's the point that Don was trying to make, and to that extent, I think he is correct.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 09:19 am: Edit

Heiko,

You're not doing the right kind of running, and you vastly underestimate the power of a simple jump rope. Long, continuous running or jumping is good for your health, but it doesn't provide the same kind of stimulation to your endocrine system that short, intense bursts of exercise do. Take a look at the muscle mass on world-class sprinters.

High intensity interval training means picking an activity that uses most of the body's muscles simultaneously - like sprinting or rope jumping -- and doing intervals of 30-60 sec. at your absoulute maximum intensity level, with rests of 10-30 sec. in between. The overall feeling of well-being after an HIIT session is the best non-pharmacuetical high next to sex.

Resistance exercises that use many muscle groups at the same time can also stimulate the hell out of your system, but you don't need weights or machines -- pushups, pullups, handstand pushups, dips, squats, lunges, and destabilized and plyometric versions of these build mass just as well or better, and you don't have to spend your time in a dungeon or a disco.

K.

By Heiko on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 08:44 am: Edit

Kevin,
sorry, I didn't mean you don't have enough exercise - as far as I can remember you once said you're a real fitness freak.

I do some weightlifting because I want to get more body mass (I'm pretty thin and lightweight) - the serotonine is only a nice side-effect. But I doubt if training single muscles or training with a jump rope makes much difference on the serotonine production: when training with heavy weights until the muscles start burning, the effect on the brain seems to be almost more intense than from running for an hour or so. If you don't pause much between the different exercises, you also get half an hour or 45 minutes of constant heavy exercise.
I dunno, maybe running produces most serotonine, but it does definitely not help me in gaining some weight, which is my major concern.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 06:47 am: Edit

L - Wow. That alarm lamp is $200 bucks. Fuck that. I'm sure if I can understand the electronics, I could make one for $20 from old fluorescent fixtures and parts at radioshack. Thanks for the link anyway.

H - I already get plenty of exercise, and I don't think my serotonin levels are in bad shape. I don't like weightlifting, unless you mean bodyweight lifting like pullups and such. I doubt exercises like bicep curls and leg extensions boost serotonin levels much because they work such a small portion of the body's muscle mass at once. Buy a jump rope and look up High Intensity Interval Training if you want to blast your serotonin. Or run speed intervals.

The issue is about waking up. Waking up to an alarm clock makes me feel like shit - I hate it. If a light-timed device will allow me to wake up at a time I can control, and feel good instead, that would be a device worth trying.

K.

By Heiko on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 02:52 am: Edit

OK, I know what you mean - but for me as well, I can't keep quiet if some "info" is posted that is definitely not right. Now that everyting seems to be clear, we can just forget about that topic.

Serotonine is more interesting, that's right. Back in school I sometimes used to connect a timer to a lamp that was out of reach and directed at my face. That really wakes you up! The real sun is better, though. Now, as a student, I have the pleasure to see the real sun every morning ;-) Only when it's there, of course (most time isn't...)

What gives you much serotonine is some hard exercise. Do some pushups and weightlifting - you only need to do that for half an hour - it works great!

btw what IMO really kills your serotonine levels in the morning is too much alcohol the night before. I guess just everything that messes around with the natural production of serotonine isn't good, even if it's only cigarettes. But the more it messes around, the worse. The absolutely worst serotonine-killer has been mentioned just a few posts down...so much on how I dislike some of the stuff we discussed in this thread!

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 02:19 am: Edit

The absinthe world, in the US anyway, exists in a fragile twilight limbo of non-enforcement of old, vague laws and mostly stupid more contemporary (50s-70s) FDA regulations.

This situation is metastable, and can easily be toppled into idiotic draconian police tactics.

Does anyone here want to see that happen?

I doubt it.

As to dismantling the forum, that's your idea (of an idea) Vera not mine, there is nothing unwise about discussing absinthe AS LIQUOR. It's all the iditic prattle about absinthe as the latest supposed 'high' that is counterproductive, as well as all the tangential shit about illegal drugs that they DO enforce the laws against. My opinions as to those laws and that enforcement have NOTHING to do with our mutual self interest in seeing the status quo preserved and absinthe ignored.

Or among us on the forum are there assholes so far gone that they'd shoot icewater to get high if someone told them it would work?

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 01:41 am: Edit

"If you wanted restraint in mentioning illegal or semi-illegal herbs, why not tell us to dismantle this forum? This place is a well of knowledge for any authorities seeking resources on absinthe."

I think this vastly overrates this forum. This forum is a well of personal opinions and bullshit on every topic under the sun. As for being a forum full of absinthe 'experts', I can think of less than 4 of them on this forum. We are mainly just a bunch of self-opinionated folk with an over-exaggerated view of our own knowledge on absinthe (and most other things).

Salvia is not semi-illegal, it is currently legal. The calls for restraint on discussion of illegal drugs on the forum I fully understand, even though I don't really go along with them. Although in the USA your government takes a much more draconian line than European governments (there is strong support within our government and opposition to have a sensible deabte on decriminalising cannabis). It is easier for the likes of myself, and European forumites to to say discuss what you like.

Hobgoblin

By Leela on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 01:23 am: Edit

Anatomist1,

Those overpriced in-flight tchotcke catalogs (i.e. "Sky Mall") often feature such an alarm clock. It's generally advertised as being a "Swedish" alarm clock, or something like that.

It usually consists of a full-spectrum florescent set in a milky glass globe, mounted on a base that holds a regular electronic alarm clock. You set the clock, and about 20 minutes before the "wake up" time the light starts coming on...softly at first and slowly working up to full power.

I've never tried it, because I haven't had the kind of job where I have to be up by a certain hour for many years.

Ahh, found a URL:

http://www.skymall.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/gotoPage?pid=26176052&page=detail&sid=57612178%400

Leela

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Ok I'm not Blackjack but...

I've found that sleeping in total darkness makes me more lethargic when waking than sleeping in a sunlight room during a shorter amount of time.

This was over an 8 month period.

I'm back to sleeping with a black blanket over the window and stumbling like a hungover lush every morning.

By Verawench on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Kevin,

Doesn't this have something to do with positive/negative ions? Positive ions = closed buildings, no natural light, monitors. Negative ions = fresh water, thunderstorms, sunlight.. etc.

This could be all hoaky nonsense, but I agree from experience about natural light upon waking aiding with depression, etc...

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 11:14 pm: Edit

While we're on the topic of serotonin and trying not to talk about illegal drugs, has anyone here ever experimented with using a timed light source as an alarm clock? I read in some book about various strategies for making 'natural prozac' in your own body by manipulating behaviors that have an influence on serotonin levels. There were some dietary suggestions, and other ones about exposure to light and heat.

For instance, they claimed hot baths and jacuzzis lowered serotonin, and waking up in response to gradually increasing ambient light levels raised it. I have noticed that when I go camping or sleep in front of a big window that I wake up with a lot of energy and alertness despite having gotten a less than normal amount of sleep.

I have considered building a fluorescent light array to hang over my bed to experiment with it, but I'm electronically illiterate and I can't figure out how to combine a rheostat and an accurate timer. Has anyone ever tried this or seen any products designed to do this? (I'm looking in your general direction Blackjack).

K.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 10:50 pm: Edit

Theres an idea for Andrew Lloyd Webber: "Abecrombie and Fitch Summer Catalogue: The Musical!"

Sorry I went of on a dissertation, Don. My inner pedant can't stand to see anybody say something incorrect in public.

At least I don't beat them up anymore, like I did that kid in kindergarten who said man killed off the dinosaurs...

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Talking about illegal drugs is like singing about child pornography... Or something

By Verawench on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 08:42 pm: Edit

If you wanted restraint in mentioning illegal or semi-illegal herbs, why not tell us to dismantle this forum? This place is a well of knowledge for any authorities seeking resources on absinthe.

As far as salvia's concerned, no one here has posted anything that wasn't known before to those looking into this sage.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Heiko:

"discussing drugs doesn't make us junkies"

Maybe not, but discussing drugs on an absinthe forum helps blur the difference between a liqueur, wrongly believed by many to be druglike, and illegal drugs.

What this report about salvia divinorm DOES emphatically demonstrate is that the drug police ARE always looking for more things to put on their Schedule of Controlled Substances. IMHO that is just further rerason NOT to give them ammunition by posting about stuff that already IS on there.

Or one day we may wake up and find wormwood, thujone and absinthe all HIGHLY illegal and not merely fashionably counter-FDA like the present situation.

This is not a Freedom of Speech issue. This is about self restraint in our mutual self interest.

"It's just a herb" Yeah so is cannabis and peyote is just a mushroom. Won't stop them putting you in jail for them.

By Luvlite68 on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Morning glory seeds = very low dose LSD with lots of nausea

Special K = Ketamine, a strong disassociative and well know animal tranquilizer. Potential for habitual abuse is high.

Tavura-

Blackjack has got it right. Anectdotal evidence is interesting but testing by Dance Safe and numerous other organizations indicate otherwise. MDMA needs no "kick." It does just fine on its own. Misinformation on drugs and impurities is just part of the territory. There are still people that believe LSD has strychnine in it.

By Uncle on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Nothing beats a whiptopping whip-it in a pinch!!!Theres also those old morning glory seeds.....

By Heiko on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Tavarua,

the Heroin in Ecstasy is more of a raver's myth who believe that "these little brown spots on the pill must have been H". Science says different things. This is a chart by the BKA, the German federal police about the substances found in 253.993 seized ecstasy pills:

MDMA
0,7 - 127 mg

Amphetamine
0,6 - 72
mg

MDA
30 - 64 mg

Methamphetamine
2 - 23 mg

MDE
23 - 111 mg

BDMPEA
average: 15 mg

Ephedrine
105 - 115 mg

the report also says that 97.7% of these pills only contained ONE of these substances and of these were 87.7% MDMA, 11% amphetamine, 2% MDA and 1% were either Methamphetamine, MDE, BDMPEA or Ephedrine.

Link: http://www.bka.de/lageberichte/rg/1999/rg_2_4.html (scroll down to the "ecstasy"-chart)

That's it, no mysterious substances like atropine, strychnine, heroin or whatever else people suspect to be in pills. The link should be quite believable - it's on the official website of the German federal police...


Quote:

“It is only effective for about half an hour ("businessman's trip"...), and it is not useful as a party drug, so it was never and probably will never be used as such.”

Special K?


I wasn't referring to the fact that it only lasts half an hour and THEREFORE wasn't useful as a party drug. Nitrous Oxide and Poppers have an effect of only some minutes at most and are quite common party drugs. The effect of Salvinorin is not something you would want to have at a party, that's what I meant.


Quote:

It may not be absinthe, this is always an interesting topic and is somewhat relateable to everyone here that, where absinthe is banned, orders and consumes it.


That's what I also think about it - but what I know from this forum is that some members don't like it too much even only to discuss any possible effects of absinthe. For me, it's perfectly ok to discuss drugs as well as guns or politics with fellow absintheurs. Discussing guns doesn't mean you're a mass murderer, discussing drugs doesn't mean you're a junkie!

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 02:21 pm: Edit

I found some abstrcts. I'd need to see the full articles to be sure heroin wasn't involved, but if it was present in any large amount, I suspect it would have been mentioned in the abstract.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10353046

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n17/ffull/jlt1101-5.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=2880953

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Quotes taken out of context to intensify dramatic effect )


Quote:

I did not say that it needs a kick-start




Quote:

It bleeds the seratonin from the brain, which is merely a chemical used to counter depression, and without a kick-start, H or MDA, it is much more mellow, which is not desired.



Serotonin is not "meerly" a chemical used to counter depression. It is one of the primary neurotransitters in the brain and is in part responsble for the regulation of a huge number of body functions.

That is neither here nor there, however, since the serotonin depletion is what happens AFTER the trip is over. The immediate accute efect of MDMA is a tremendous boost in synaptic serotonin levles. How exactly this relates to the hallucinatory properties of MDMA is unclear, but it is related, since serotonin antagonists administered before taking MDMA prevent the hallucinations.

Anyway, there is nothing "mellow" about what MDMA does to your system, and it doesn't need any boost. It had been studid extensively in animals and no aumenting drug has ever been necissary to produce the sterotypic changes in behavior.

On a phamacologic level, "enhancing" MDMA with an opioid like herion makes no sense, as heroin operates on a totally different set of receptors from MDMA. The opioid would have no effect on the intensity of the MDMA, per se. You would just be high on two different drugs at the same time. And that would still require an orally active opioid, like codeine or hydromorphone.

Adding amphetamine or methamphetamine (which is NOT the same thing as MDA, methylenedioxyamphetamine, which is a psychedelic amphetamine like MDMA) would be redundant, since MDMA retains all of the sympathomimetic (CNS-stimulant) properties of methamphetamine. It is these properties that are responsible for the dangerous side-effects--dehydration, hypertension and hyperthermia--and adding an amphetamine to the mix would only serve to make the SIDE effects worse. Standard amphetamines alone have only a little direct effect on serotonin, and certainly not enough to in any way augment MDMA's unique modulation of seratonin reuptake and release.

Cutting MDMA with amphetamine would produce a weaker trip with more speedy effects. It might be desirable from an economic point of view (methamohetamine being cheaper than MDMA) but not one of enhancing the psychedelic effects.


Quote:

Don’t tell this to the people who are addicted to snorting heroin, drip, drip, drip.



Um, thats not oral, that's inhaled. It enters the blood stream much more readily through the nasal membranes than through the GI tract.


Quote:

As anyone can attest who is, in the very least familiar with the drug, H and MDA, speed, is almost always, always cut with one of the two




Quote:

Forget the “evidence” for a minute, I am not going to give a friend of a friend’s story, but surely you know people or have easy access to those that have used it, ask them if they prefer a molecule or a cut pill, and why.



Well, I like to consider myself "in the very least" familiar with MDMA, not because I use it, but because I have a keen interest in the psychophamacology of mood disorders, and MDMA offers some unique information about the serotonergic system.

However, I do also know people who do MDMA (I don't know if I'm more disturbed by the number of my friends who have become ravers or the number of my friends who have become Libertarians) and, God help me, I have even known a few dealers. And while I have heard rumors of E being cut with, or substituted with, heroin, but I've never heard anyone say that was a common thing, let alone a good one.

Moreover, there are numerous groups on the dance scene involved in TESTING the drugs in order to insure that people know what they are taking. One of the biggest is at http://www.dancesafe.org , and if you peruse their test results, while you will find a lot of MDMA cut with amphetamine, you will also find a good amount of pure MDMA, and, more importantly, not a speck of heroin. Now, there are certainly people who will combine MDMA with other things to enhance the effect, but these are usually other "club" drugs or psychedelics, like Ketamine or LSD.

Now, I wish I could produce a nice controlled study showing that there is no heroin beng used to cut illicit MDMA. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of evidence in this area, simply because it hasn't presented any sort of medical problem. However, there has been a lot of less-than-scientific investigation and it has turned up nil. Faced with a large amount of uncontrolled data that fails to substantiate the claim at all, and understanding that the supposed pharmacologic rationalle behind the assertion is flawed, unless you can produce some SPECIFIC data, beyond an appeal to common knowlege, supporting the assertion, I remain VERY skeptical.

Here are some other sources, besides Dancesafe. Take anything from Erowid with due salt, but it will do until I track down some primary sources:

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06311mdm.html

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_info8.shtml

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_info5.shtml

By Tavarua on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 12:18 pm: Edit

“since heroin is not orally active, small quantities would do nothing to wither kickstart MDMA or to keep people coming back.”

Don’t tell this to the people who are addicted to snorting heroin, drip, drip, drip. Also, when I made the reference of returning patrons, I am not implying that any form of E, and there are many, is addictive, I am saying that it is better in the eyes of the user and he / she will go with experience over taking a chance with a new pill any day of the week

“Also, your claim that MDMA needs some sort of pharmecologic "kickstart" is not supported by the evidence.”

I did not say that it needs a kick-start, I said it greatly intensifies the affects. The evidence? Forget the “evidence” for a minute, I am not going to give a friend of a friend’s story, but surely you know people or have easy access to those that have used it, ask them if they prefer a molecule or a cut pill, and why.

This is all I have time for right now, but I will do some research and get back to you.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit


Quote:

s anyone can attest who is, in the very least familiar with the drug, H and MDA, speed, is almost always, always cut with one of the two.



This is just not true. There has been EXTENSIVE testing of pills sold as MDMA, both by law enforcment and by private groups, and none have turned up even traces of opiods. Also, your claim that MDMA needs some sort of pharmecologic "kickstart" is not supported by the evidence, and, since herion is not orally active, small quantities would do nothing to wither kickstart MDMA or to keep people coming back.

I have to run just now, but I can provide MUCH more support for this than I can for the Salvia stuff. Unless you can produce some evidence that heroin IS used as you describe, you have a very tough case to prove.

By Tavarua on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 11:47 am: Edit

Vera

See, drugs bring people together, silly. Why can’t we all be like Keith Richards? Oh yea, never mind.

By Tavarua on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 11:38 am: Edit

Blackjack,

Well shut my mouth, you sneaky little Bastard. I will give you the first article, that is indeed what I asked for and you did provide. The battle is yours. However, I cannot accept the other four. The second is a mere atomic blueprint, the third is regurgitated, second-hand information., the fourth is based on “previous reports” and fieldwork done with a Mazatec Shaman, and the fifth on is a description of the plants appearance and its pollen properties. Regardless, you did cough up a credible report, even if the host site is a little suspect, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

“Er, not quite. First of all, there have been no confirmed cases of Heroin being sold as MDMA.”

Not sold as MDMA, but definitely cut with MDMA. As anyone can attest who is, in the very least familiar with the drug, H and MDA, speed, is almost always, always cut with one of the two. This is because, as indicated earlier, pure MDMA is not that powerful on its own. It bleeds the seratonin from the brain, which is merely a chemical used to counter depression, and without a kick-start, H or MDA, it is much more mellow, which is not desired. This is the reason for double and triple stacked pills, they are not doubling the amount of MDMA, as only the small amount used is necessary to do the job. The additional stacking is more H or MDA. I cannot explain the extended time frame, but again, anyone who is “familiar” with it, will back this statement up.

Also a healthy serving of H is only about ten dollars these days, as the same amount would have cost fifty 15-20 years ago. Now, when a pill costs in the realm of 20-25 retail, it is easy to see that H is not that expensive at all to throw in the mix, especially if it keeps the customers coming back. Keep in mind, I am no expert in this field, I do not do any of the above and do not endorse any drug use.

By Verawench on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 10:51 am: Edit

"Everyone keeps saying that they don’t want to offend anyone in the forum and will stop posting"

Just cause I apologize for something doesn't mean I plan to stop doing it :P

Seriously, I figured some may get offended because there is a push by quite a few people on this forum to remove the drug-like stigma from absinthe's reputation. No one complained.. hmm.. what's wrong with you people? Where's the piss and vinegar? Stashed away with that guiltily half empty bottle of hill's?

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 10:44 am: Edit


Quote:

Show me a legitimate report, done by accredited Scientists, not associated with a Government body, that is backed by accurate research and testing, and not reqouted hearsay from alleged Scientists.




Knock yourself out:

Siebert, D.J. (1994a). Salvia divinorum and salvinorin A: New pharmacologic findings. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 43: 53-56.
Medline abstract
Full text

Ortega. A 1982 Salvinorin, A New Trans-Neoclerodane Diterpene from
Salvia divinorum (labiatea). Journal of the Chemical Society Perkins Transactions: 2505-2508
Full text

Valdés III, L.J. (1994b). Salvia divinorum and the unique diterpene hallucinogen, salvinorin (divinorin) A. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26: 277-283.
Medline abstract
Full text


Valdés III, L.J. et al. (1983). Ethnopharmacology of Ska Maria Pastora (Salvia divinorum, Epling and Jativa-M.). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 7: 287-312.
Medline abstract
Full text


Reisfield, A.S. (1993). The botany of Salvia divinorum (Labiatae) SIDA 15: 349-366
Full text

Yes, I am aware that the full texts are being hosted by a site selling the stuff, which is why I provided the Medline citations, when I could find them, to show these studies were actualy published.

Never challenge a librarian's son to cite his sources...


Quote:

The problem is MDMA is almost always cut with H or speed, because “molecules”, pure MDMA, lasts less time and is substantially, substantially weaker, therefore less appealing



Er, not quite. First of all, there have been no confirmed cases of Heroin being sold as MDMA. It would be a stupid thing to do, since Heroin is more expensive, and is largely inactive when taken orally. There are lots of things being sold as MDMA, primarily ephedrine, amphetamine, caffeine and dextromethorphan in various combinations, but this is done to make more money, not to make it last longer. There is precious little that CAN make an MDMA episode last longer, since it depletes your body's seratonin so effectively in the short term.

There are other things that show up being sold as, or mixed with, MDMA, including MDA and other psychedelic amphetamines, Ketamine, piperazine stimulants, and, of course, aspirin and sugar pills. The real dangers are with dextromethorphan (yes, like in the cough syrup) and PMA, both of which are much more likely to couse malignant hypertension and hyperthermia than MDMA.

There has been at least one case of PCP being sold as MDMA, which is scary enough, but so far, no heroin. It wouldn't surprise me too much if it happened eventually, since it's such a pervasive myth that somebody will likely try it.

By Tavarua on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 07:24 am: Edit

Vera,

“Oh, good god, I wasn't gonna buy that thing off of ebay.. I posted that link as comparison to the infamous "absinthe herb kit".”

Never said you were going to. I figure everyone in this forum is relatively educated as to misinformation that exists on the web, especially in reference to drugs or reported legal, mind-altering substances, which are almost always bogus. I was just making comparison like you were, on how E-Bay and other internet sites, are a stomping ground for uneducated, unresearched consumers, and how easy it is to take money from suckers. You have checked-out the internet site, what kind of moron would pay 45 USD for ten seeds of the stuff, when any nursery would charge you 5 USD to order ten times that amount in a packet.

“No one said anything about any of this having to do with absinthe or even thujone... As Carfax said, it's simply an issue of herb regulation in general, which people around here find of interest.”

I am aware, just making my own caparison between two misunderstood substances.


Hieko

“It is only effective for about half an hour ("businessman's trip"...), and it is not useful as a party drug, so it was never and probably will never be used as such.”

Special K?


“Not any good scientists, and not recently.”

No, not RECENTLY, but they have indeed said this in the past. My point is at some point, apparent scientists, whose trade is to test truth through unbiased, backed up, tried and tested research, can fuck up. Check out any Government report on a new substance they believe to be dangerous. Surprise, they prove that it is, accurately or not.

“ Sorry, man. I get what you were trying to say, but this drug isn't a good example. Its psychoactive properties are well known and profound.”

Show me a legitimate report, done by accredited Scientists, not associated with a Government body, that is backed by accurate research and testing, and not reqouted hearsay from alleged Scientists. It seems everyone that is quoting their experience with the Salvia is telling a different story, some with heavy affect, some with no affect, others speaking of a 2 minute out of body experience and others talking of a 30-45 intense trip. I am aware that drugs have different affects on people, but there are always constants, and they do not seem to match up in this case.

“With the exception of MDMA and its amphetamine/phenethylamine-derved cousins, most of the psychedelic drugs are relatively nontoxic.”

The problem is MDMA is almost always cut with H or speed, because “molecules”, pure MDMA, lasts less time and is substantially, substantially weaker, therefore less appealing.

“well, honestly, there are so few cases of persons suffering from permanant psychosis after taking psychedelics that it is impossible to know if what role the drugs played.”

Very true, Syde Barret lost his mind from excessive use of LSD, ending with one final obscenely large dosage that not even he could handle.


Luvlite

“Some people can take psychoactive substances in big amounts, some must be extremely careful and some shouldn't do it at all.”

Yup.


One more thing Vera, Hieko and every one else that addressed the issue of no drugs. Everyone keeps saying that they don’t want to offend anyone in the forum and will stop posting. No one has complained. It may not be absinthe, this is always an interesting topic and is somewhat relateable to everyone here that, where absinthe is banned, orders and consumes it. At the least it educates people more as to the facts and consequences of drug usage. Forty-Five postings in less than two days, hell of a thread Carfax.

By Heiko on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 06:31 am: Edit

Blackjack,
now that you say it, I realize I used the term "psychoactive" in a totally wrong way. But, in German, almost everyone does. When you say "psychoactive", people think of lsd, not of alcohol or coffee...

Uncle,
be careful, there's a good chance you'll have to -just like a well known German sports journalist recently did- tell people on tv that you had a blackout, don't know why your hands and face were burnt and don't have a clue how the drugs came into your blood... *g*

By Uncle on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 05:34 am: Edit

Gabba gabba Hay! The devil told me to freebase Dawn dishsoap! Wheeeeeee...

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 04:06 am: Edit


Quote:

If yes, which drug can then considered to be not psychoactive?



"Psychoactive" simply means that it effects the bain or mental processes, so _recreational_ drugs (including caffeine and nicotine) are pretty much all psychoactive, sinply because the thing that makes them entertaining is that they do _something_ to your brain, be it producing euphoria, distorting perceptions, or just creating a mild sense of well being. Non-psychoactive drugs are pretty much only used theraputically.

"Psychedelic" (frpm the Greek "revealing the mind") refers specifically to those drugs which produce hallucinations or sensory distortions, like LSD. Scientists prefer "psychotomimetic," meaning that the drug produces the equivalent of a brief psychotic episode. Some of the more crunchy space-elves use the term "entheogen," meaning "creating an inner god..."

By Marc on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 11:31 pm: Edit

I've done all the drugs mentioned in this thread, some of them many times. Salvia Divinorum is unique. When enhanced leaves (sprayed with salvinorin A) are smoked, the effects are quick and powerful. My wife left her body and experienced a vivid re-living of a childhood memory. I felt the presence of a strange being in the room with me, it spoke in a deep unintelligible voice. Time and space were wildly distorted. The trip, both mine and my wife's, lasted approx. 2 minutes.
I recommend taking it with someone you trust and who is strong enough to prevent you from walking into walls or furniture.

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Well, then I'm going to have a psychoactive drink now.
Coffee, I mean ;-)

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 08:32 pm: Edit

psychoactive
adj.
Affecting the mind or mental processes. Used of a drug.

Pretty vague, if you ask me. Though the definition does seem to encompass alcohol - as well as your Thanksgiving turkey.

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 08:32 pm: Edit

psy·cho·ac·tive (sk-ktv)
adj.
Affecting the mind or mental processes. Used of a drug.

Pretty vague, if you ask me. Though the definition does seem to encompass alcohol - as well as your Thanksgiving turkey.

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 07:54 pm: Edit

One more, only a question about terminology:

Is alcohol considered to be "psychoactive"?
If yes, which drug can then considered to be not psychoactive?
I thought the word was used almost synonymous to "psychedelic".

By Luvlite68 on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Blackjack-

It sounds like we should have a drink sometime. :-) Let me know if you are ever in the Seattle area.

By Luvlite68 on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Heiko-

"Only, you don't know exactly what group you belong to unless you try... "

Doesn't this apply to almost everything in life? :-)

Vera-

DMT is dimethyltryptamine. It is a fast acting drug if inhaled/smoked or injected. Orally, it must be combined with an MAO inhibitor so that it isn't metabolised to non psychoactive components via the gut. It is a relatively close cousin to psylocibin and is used by amazonian/central american shamans for visionary healings. They normally drink it as a brew of two different vines. One provides the MAOI and the other provides the DMT. Oral ingestion is much longer since the substance is being introduced to your bloodstream more slowly. Smoking it lasts anywhere from 5-30 minutes with 10-20 minutes being most people's experience. It was called the businessman's trip because you could go out at lunch and trip and be back to baseline within 30-45 minutes. For a comparison: if psylocibin and LSD were falling from the air suspended by a parachute, DMT would be like sky diving. Yes, the parachute does eventually open.

Encounters and interaction with "beings" are common. A sense of disassociation and acceleration through time/space is also common.

DMT can come in a powder but it is normally found in soapstone-like chunks that are colored anywhere from pink to orange. It can be extracted from numerous plants around the world or synthesized. Synthesis is fairly rare since both tryptamine and methylamine are watched substances. The former is a distinctly scat smelling substance and the latter is also used in synthesis of things like MDMA. The first "M" in MDMA is the methyl group derived from methylamine. Extraction is difficult because DMT content in most plants is fairly variable. Those who play with DMT are generally the hard core psychonauts.

I apologize to the rest of the forumites for the non-absinthe content. Vera, if you would like more information, you can email me directly. There is quite a bit of information about it on the Internet but like most other things out there, caveat emptor.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:37 pm: Edit


Quote:

Absinthe is not psychoactive...



Oh, absinthe is certainly psychoACTIVE, since it is 50-80% ethanol, which is a powerful CS depressant and neurotoxin. It is unlikely that it is any more psychoactive than most liquors, tho, and it does not appear to be psychdelic, i.e., producing hallucinations or major distortions of perception.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:30 pm: Edit

DMT=dimethyltryptamine, the second best known (and specifically schedules), after psylocibin, of the large number of tryptamines with psychedelic properties. It occurs naturally in phalaris, mimosa, acacia and several other plants and fungi. It also is produced naturally in small quatities in your brain as a function of seratonin metabolisis. This is a problem, since, as a schedule I substance, it is illegal in any quantity, so youe cerebro-spinal fluid may be a felony...

I have never done it, but it is almost universally described as a "roller coaster." The trip is very short, extrememly intense, and, for some, terrifying. It produces intense visual and tactile hallucinations, and almost complete loss of connection to the outside world. It only lasts a few minutes, however.

In it's pure form, it is usually smoked or injected, since, if taken orally, most of it will be deactivated by the MAO enzymes in your gut. When taken in plant form, it is often combined with other plants with reversable MAO-inhibitory properties, to potentiate it. However, it should not me taken in combination with the irriversable MAO inhibitors that are used in treating depression, since tha can lead to extremely hypertensive crisis.

I know way too much about this stuff...

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:30 pm: Edit

"Well, enough on that - I can virtually see some forumites getting angry about this drug-talk ;-)"

Yes, yes, apologies in advance to all offended parties. Seriously though, this is pure theory.. I've probably done the least drugs of any people on this forum. I don't want anything to interfere with my irrepressible personality *wink*

Vera

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:27 pm: Edit

"psychoactive substances taken just for fun by inexperienced people can end in unbearable fear and psychotic reactions."

"Inexperienced" being the key word... I for example have never taken LSD - not because of lack of opportunity, but because I did my reading, asked a lot of questions, and in the end chose not to take it.

Anything can be dangerous in the hands of those who either overestimate their drug intake abilities or don't do their research. If you're not ready for the assault on your senses, fear is much more likely to take over... same as with any stressful situation. Before you take X, for example, you should know better than to dance and sweat constantly for 10 hours straight.

Absinthe is not psychoactive.. most people, including myself, WILL agree.

But then what the hell is it? And why are we all here to obsess over its every aspect?

Perhaps it's a form of cultural glue... Not a chemically but a socially addictive...

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Blackjack,

with the "take it and can't escape it" I wasn't talking about permanent psychosis - I was only talking about the few hours the effect is going on. These few hours can be long enough to be very unpleasant!
mdma psychoactive? Not in my book! I've heard of people claiming they had bad trips from it, I never understood. Take it, feel great, that's what I think. Of course only until you come down from it, then it gives you a nice depression. And after some time using it, you'll actually feel that it is a danger to your body and brain...

Well, enough on that - I can virtually see some forumites getting angry about this drug-talk ;-)

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Vera,
I don't say you succumb after one time use, and you will definitely not die from (most) psychoactive drugs at all. That's not the point. I think I must be kind of 'anti drug' in that case - psychoactive substances taken just for fun by inexperienced people can end in unbearable fear and psychotic reactions.
Most people don't realize how their mind is capable of changing your whole world. If someone really wants to know, he or she does it anyways, but I don't want to be the reason for someone to do it. In the end, the thought "that's what I wanted to experience, not someone else made me do it, I wanted it" might be your saviour.

Blackjack,
right - I've once seen a friend going totally crazy from the same amount of psilocybin that some others who were with us experienced as not that strong. I myself was near desperation for about two hours that evening as I am very sensitive especially to psychoactive substances.
That's why I don't consider such substances to be recreational fun but serious mindfuck no one ought to play with without serious preparation and a lot of care.

Luvlite,
"It does screw with your mind a bit but it is hardly pleasant at all."
I totally agree. No loss of self with me, the unpleasant physical feeling was too strong.
Also I agree with you on the following: Some people can take psychoactive substances in big amounts, some must be extremely careful and some shouldn't do it at all. Only, you don't know exactly what group you belong to unless you try...

And again: absinthe is NOT psychoactive, if it was, I wouldn't drink it that often, that's for sure!

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:06 pm: Edit

With the exception of MDMA and its amphetamine/phenethylamine-derved cousins, most of the psychedelic drugs are relatively nontoxic. LSD, in fact, has one of the largest theraputic margins (the difference between the effective dose and lethal dose) of any drug. It is VERY difficult to ingest a lethal dose of LSD, psylocibin or mescaline. Even the triptamines are safe, relative to things like, say, Tylenol.

As far as the "you take it and can't escape" idea, well, honestly, there are so few cases of persons suffering from permanant psychosis after taking psychedelics that it it impossible to know if what role the drugs played. If you are looking for a drug that causes psychosis, amphetamines are a much better choice, and even that is usually reversable.

The only real medical danger of most psychedelics is that, since they are sold on the black market, you don't know what chemicals you are actually taking or in what dose.

Oddly, most of the more toxic and addictive drugs (amphetamines, cocaine, morphine, PCP) are Schedule II in the US, meaning they are still legal for medical use, while the relatively safe and non-addictive drugs like LSD and Marijuana are Schedule I, meaning they are banned outright.

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Thanks, Luvlite. As with absinthe I like to obtain a good deal of opinions/research before I try anything new.

Also, what's DMT? Apologising in advance for my ignorance...

By Luvlite68 on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Vera-

Please understand that my comments were only intended to suggest that IF you were interested in trying Salvia, make sure to get it fresh. Otherwise, you'll smoke or eat a bunch of leaves with a pretty offensive taste and no "benefit." Relative to other psychoactive substances, I would rate Savlia pretty low as it only seems to produce the psychedlic "loss of self" in a very minor way in a few people. It does screw with your mind a bit but it is hardly pleasant at all.

Heiko-

I would submit that whatever battle psychedelics create in one's mind are tension that existed prior to the trip. That is why those that play with such things should dig deep internally and be prepared to confront whatever issues may arise. For some, those are doors that aren't best open. BTW, the "business man's trip" normally refers to DMT. Salvia can be DMT-like but Salvia is to DMT as light beer is to pure grain alcohol.

None of this should be confused with absinthe. Thujone is certainly "active" at some level within the mind but so is a metal rod applied to the head. If all "active" substances were regulated to "protect" us, the government would have to ration water since it technically can cause intoxication at very high levels.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:39 pm: Edit


Quote:

The problem is, everyone is talking about what they have heard.



No, there are several people on the board who have had first-hand experience of its psychoactive properties.

Quote:

SCIENTISTS have said that thujone is a strong psychoactive drug.



Not any good scienteists, and not recently. The best they have been able to come up with is that it has some MILD psychoactive properties (GABA antagonism) in moderate doses, and that (like a zillion other things) it can be toxic at very high doses.

Quote:

You yourself have tried salvia with no avail, so how can you make the statement that it is a "strong psychotropic drug." There is a difference to being drug resistant and not being affected in the slightest by a powerful psychoactive drug.



Well, I am not affected in the slightest by normal doses psylocibin, which is a strong psychoactive drug, and I am only affected by LSD (arguably the most potent psychoactive compound known to man) at dosages 10 times the usual effective dose. Likewise, I am unaffected by amphetamines except at high doses, and even then, my response is somewhat paradoxical. On the other hand, I am so sensitive to marijuana that I can't stand to smoke it, because a small amount leaves me totally incapacitated. If you would like a full list of the weird things my body does, I can provide it.

Also, as I pointed out, I was attempting to take the drug via a sublingual extract. Tho this means works for some, others find it ineffective, probably due to differing absorbtion rates. Had I smoked it, I might have done better.

Sorry, man. I get what you were trying to say, but this drug isn't a good example. It's psychoactive properties are well known and profound.

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Most people survive their first time with just about any substance, Heiko... you're sounding a bit like anti-drug propaganda. I've never met anyone who succumbed to a drug permanently after a one time use.

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:04 pm: Edit

"If you're giddy, sedated, or flying through time and space, who cares if it's purely psychological?"

The thing is: When it isn't purely psychological anymore, you will definitely know. Some really psychoactive substance will get a grip of your mind so strong you can't escape, even if you badly want to. Nothing to play with! No one can describe it more than superficially and it might sound like a fun thing to do. It's not. In the end it's just your mind fighting a lone battle - if the 'enemy' is too strong, your mind might as well lose it. Maybe a bad comparison, but intended as a true warning not to take real psychoactive substances too easy!

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:00 pm: Edit

"If you're giddy, sedated, or flying through time and space, who cares if it's purely psychological?"

The thing is: When it isn't purely psychological anymore, you will definitely know. Some really psychoactive substance will get a grip of your mind so strong you can't escape, even if you badly want to. Nothing to play with! No one can describe it more than superficially and it might sound like a fun thing to do. It's not. In the end it's just your mind fighting a lone battle - if the 'enemy' is too strong, your mind might as well lose it. Maybe a bad comparison, but intended as a true warning not to take real psychoactive substances too easy!

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 03:28 pm: Edit

"every single bullshite article that was written about thujone and it’s “psychoactive “ affect"

No one said anything about any of this having to do with absinthe or even thujone... As Carfax said, it's simply an issue of herb regulation in general, which people around here find of interest.

By Heiko on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Salvinorin A in a pure and extracted form is supposedly one of the most psychoactive substances you can get. It is only effective for about half an hour ("businessman's trip"...), and it is not useful as a party drug, so it was never and probably will never be used as such.
People claim having had extremely real hallucinations and visions from extracts of salvinorin.
My experience with smoking dried leaves was that it tasted horrible and I didn't feel much. After chewing a mouthful in addition to that, I fell into a strange dream-like state and felt rather unpleasant (physically) - gravity seemed to increase and I was sweating like hell. It was a little like dreaming while still awake. I wouldn't do it again because it gave me an unpleasant physical feeling in addition to a rather weak psychoactive effect (I did get something out of it, and it wasn't psychologically unpleasant). I did not do it because I wanted some drug kick - I really prepared the whole thing as a little journey into the mind.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who still thinks absinthe was psychoactive.
Absinthe is just a recreational drink - salvia divinorum is not.

I think it's great that the US wants to ban it, so I keep the bag I still have and sell it for an extraordinary price as soon as its unavailable. I bought it for some pocket change from a German online shop, but I'm not interested anymore in consuming it.

I know, this is not the right place to discuss drugs. We should be speaking about Absinthe - but someone brought it up, and I see no reason why I should be ashamed of having done somehting like that and not speak about it (it's not even illegal) - period!

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 02:56 pm: Edit

"I would not recommend purchasing it unless you can verify its freshness. Salvia divinorum loses much of its effectiveness over time."

Oh, good god, I wasn'tgonna buy that thing off of ebay.. I posted that link as comparison to the infamous "absinthe herb kit".

Anyway, y'all can argue all you want but my sister gets high off of turkey because she read an article about tryptophan. The point is, different stuff works for different people.

If you're giddy, sedated, or flying through time and space, who cares if it's purely psychological? Personally, I want to give diviner's sage a try.

Vera

By Tavarua on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Blackjack,

The problem is, everyone is talking about what they have heard. This is how the bullshit starts. SCIENTISTS have said that thujone is a strong psychoactive drug. Everyone except those that have actually tried the drink is convinced that it is a mind-bending trip that puts you in a Van Gough painting. Even newbies that read the posts, I myself made this mistake, come in and ask how intense the "thujone" factor is, and these are people that read us, saying how it is bullshit, before they ask.

The proof is in the pudding. When, if, I ever run across this "strong psychotropic drug," I may try it for shits and giggles. If they outlaw it, I know I will give it a shot, but until then, probably not. I sure am hell not going to pay 45 USD for a gram of it, when I can buy the seeds for five bucks at the nursery and grow it on my own.

You yourself have tried salvia with no avail, so how can you make the statement that it is a "strong psychotropic drug." There is a difference to being drug resistant and not being affected in the slightest by a powerful psychoactive drug.

Shit, here we go again.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I could never get Salvia to do anything for me, but I am highly drug-resistant, and I was using a sublingual extract. I've been told smoking it is more effective, but I really hate inhaling smoke.

Just the be clear, this is NOT the same kind of sage you find in your Stove-top Stuffing, and, to my knowlege, it doesn't contain much thujone. The active ingredient is salvinorin-a, a chemically novel hallucinogen.

As far as illegalizing it goes, well, it is not, in any way, a drug I can see having much of a street tade, since it is non-addictive and, I am told, so intense and short-acting that people aren't likely to want to do it very often. From the descriptions I've seen f the trips, I can't imagine anyone committing a crime while on the stuff either...or even leaving the house...or standing up...

However, peyote and psylocibin are both schedule I, so it won't surprise me if the DEA goes after it. I may have to give it another try before they do.

BTW, Tavarua, the difference between this and talk of thujone is that salvia really IS a strong psychotropic drug. However, from what I have heard, most bored teenagers who try to get high off of it will be disappointed, simply because it produces the sort of intense, ego-nullifying trip that only people of a more intorspective, spiritual bent will really get much out of.

By Tavarua on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 01:00 pm: Edit

This article seems somewhat familiar. Where have I seen it before? Oh yea, in every single bullshite article that was written about thujone and it’s “psychoactive “ affect. There is probably a forum of folks who use this product to flavor their food and drink, realize that it is all hype, and make fun of the people on e-bay who overbid excessively on it thinking it will get them high. Sound familiar? This reminds me of some of my high school buddies who used to eat a teaspoon of nutmeg or smoke the inside of banana peels and peanut skins thinking it would get them high. Who knows, give it a try, but don’t get to extraordinary lengths to obtain it, grow a plant in your yard if you are that curious. Shit, if it actually has any affect whatsoever, you will have an endless supply. But if I see any forum members on E-Bay bidding for this snake oil, I’m taking off my belt. I know it may seem harsh, but it is for your own good and you will thank me for it later.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Have the US FDA got sod all else to do, bunch of arseholes. By making Salvia illegal all they'd do is increase drug related crime. Supply of drugs ('hard' and 'soft') ought to be controlled by our governments, not by criminals. The only people who benefit from the illegality of drugs are the criminals who supply them.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Have the US FDA got sod all else to do, bunch of arseholes. By making Salvia illegal all they'd do is increase drug related crime. Supply of drugs ('hard' and 'soft') ought to be controlled by our governments, not by criminals. The only people who benefit from the illegality of drugs are the criminals who supply.

By Artemis on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 12:50 pm: Edit

http://sagewisdom.org/salviashop.html

I endorse neither the herb nor the website, but as with absinthe, I don't understand bidding at an auction for what is sold (probably a lot cheaper) elsewhere.

By Luvlite68 on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 12:48 pm: Edit

I would not recommend purchasing it unless you can verify its freshness. Salvia divinorum loses much of its effectiveness over time.

Clippings are fairly available via several sources so growing your own is the best way to guarantee a fruitful experience.

By Verawench on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 12:20 pm: Edit

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1165443950

I want some.

By Marc on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 09:59 pm: Edit

salvia divinorum is powerful stuff. Its a brief but intense trip.

By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Fuck! My secret is out!!! I'll have to pull some long strings to quell this fever.

By Frater_Carfax on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 08:44 pm: Edit

On matters herbal in a regulatory sense...

It appears our friends at the US FDA are taking an interest in sage.....

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0107/10/world/world4.html

By Verawench on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 09:21 am: Edit

Marc, Hob's after your job. And to boot, he's really bad at it. He lacks your panache and your unique infuriating quality. He's merely irritating, never insulting. Hob must be stopped. Hob's horny talk is the equivalent of a scalp itch verses a skull fracture from Marc.

Marc, please reclaim your rightful role as the forum's horny bastard. And I promise to start my own "Sexual Confessions of an Absinthe Wench" thread for your enjoyment.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation