Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
I think the subject is a bit lofty to compromise that way. But if you were to take the initiative to break it down, and address a piece at a time, this would be fine with me. As long as you don't pull a Mushroomtrip on me, I can refer to the greater structure of the argument when it's necessary.
But I should make a summary so you can better appropriate this.
My investigation is a genealogical analysis of these substantial myths. I will address the mythology for the most part interpretively, from the inside out.
I begin by indicating that your skepticism is similarly situated within myth. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this, but it is certainly an important consideration for us: We are not talking about the kind of skepticism expressed in P+S for instance, say, as concerning the existence of God. There is not an ordinary lack of evidence for my claim, but a lack of specific evidence towards some particular substance that certainly exists, as posited by these myths. As I said, the question of a mystified substance is constituted first by the certainty of a substance, followed by the "speculations" of what the particular substance is. This is what I describe as our pre-ontological situation.
I believe that these myths of substance are essentially and paradoxically grounded; or stagnant in the pre-ontological. That is, they "beg the question" of what these substances particularly are, but really only preserve that mystery.
I then deconstruct the possible structures that preserve the difference between A substance and THE substance; chiefly the fetish, which is usually suggested by these ideologies. I acknowledge that a spirituality that is grounded in this kind of magic, cannot, or will not be argued with. On the other hand, if someone's spirituality is grounded in substance without acknowledging this, it is what I will define appropriately as fetish.
Basically, I come to point out that any preservation of the difference between A substance and THE substance is inconceivable. Not only that, I say that this inconceivability is implausible as a positive suggestion. In the problem of finding evidence towards any specific substance, most people have come to adopt an agnostic stance to this concern. But because the myth raises this ontological premise, assuring trajectory towards a certain knowledge (from A substance to The substance), we should understand this agnostic stance as problematic in itself. We cannot sensibly remain agnostic to the question concerning substance. 1
That we are indeed speaking of an actual substance in these myths, as opposed to an impossible question, is first satisfied by psychedelics (satisfactorily a generic substance) . Second, that the ontologically specific suggestion of these myths is concretely met by psychedelics, as opposed to what is suggested by underhand fetishistic suggestions, solidifies this claim (as satisfactorily "the" substance). This is just a lengthy way of making us seriously consider the words articulated in these myths in "ordinary" terms: They talk about a substance that causes profound effects.
The fact that we live in a society that interprets profundity, rather than claiming it as such, should not be mistaken for the substantial grounds of this claim. Rather, it seems reasonable to understand that these myths were formed due to differing opinions. This is the basic point I am making. If we seriously consider what a forbidden fruit was in the past, why is the suggestion of contemporarily forbidden fruit scoffed at? Because it is forbidden?
Myths have so much weight today, that my intention might look like it seeks to prove that psychedelics are profound based on their situation in these texts. But realistically, and as much as my words can basically assure you, I think I am describing it the other way around. My experience, my investigation, as well as all existence, may all be considered to precede essence. Supposing that existence precedes essence in the realm of interpretation; is that ritual precedes the text. This is the controversy.
But historically, and as the character of genuine investigation, we are working through A controversy, from A substance to The substance.
I can't concretely determine what genuine speculation is. The more "open minded" people I have met will typically split the difference. Not an apple, but Ginseng or Chamomile tea maybe. Or some natural wonder herb. Or maybe even Ayurveda. Basically, I am at most met with legitimate herbs that I have experience with and would situate at the very low end of the spectrum of the "profound and profane" in herbalism.
Then there are the crazies like me. I know how it looks. But what I am suggesting is merely a radical answer to what is clearly radical suggestion.
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: daytripper23] #11266496 - 10/17/09 06:09 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: daytripper23] #11266564 - 10/17/09 06:21 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul] #11266621 - 10/17/09 06:32 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)
Registered: 08/30/04 Posts: 2,754 Loc: International Traveller
Last seen: 5 hours, 29 minutes
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul] #11267614 - 10/17/09 09:33 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)
Quote: Heffy said: There is however quite a bit of evidence to show that the "fire baptism" performed by Jesus, involved covering his followers with a potent cannabis containing oil.
What evidence would that be?
In exodus 30:23 the lord speaks to Moses, giving him a recipe for the holy anointing oil.
Quote: 30:23 Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels,
The KJV of the bible lists the third ingredient as "calamus", however this is a mistranslation from the original Hebrew word Kaneh-Bosm.
In the 1980's the current authority on the Hebrew language, Ben Yehudah, wrote that the original translation of the word Kaneh-Bosm was Cannabis Sativa.
Depending on how you judge the weight of the shekel, that equals between 6 and 9 pounds of cannabis flowers added into the anointing oil that was to be used as "ointment" as well as placed on all the alters, and rubbed on the candles and incense burners.
-------------------- I am the king of Rome, and above grammar! - Emperor Sigismund
Registered: 11/05/08 Posts: 1,819 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul] #11281045 - 10/20/09 12:24 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)
Registered: 11/05/08 Posts: 1,819 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: daytripper23] #11281054 - 10/20/09 12:26 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Poptart] #11281144 - 10/20/09 12:44 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)
Registered: 11/05/08 Posts: 1,819 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: b0red5tiff] #11281895 - 10/20/09 03:21 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: b0red5tiff] #11281903 - 10/20/09 03:24 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)
Registered: 11/05/08 Posts: 1,819 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Rev. Morton] #11281915 - 10/20/09 03:27 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Poptart] #11290385 - 10/21/09 07:58 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)
this guy is being as bad as the delusional james auther guy i hate that fuck tard
-------------------- "You all are just puppets... You have no heart...and cannot feel any pain...""
you may think thats pain you feel but you must have a heart to feel true pain and that pain wont be yours
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: thedudenj] #11292414 - 10/21/09 04:09 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Rev. Morton, Az0th, Diploid, Kickle, c0sm0nautt 1,038 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop for: 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
.
god dam kids 
