SWIM just got done their latest trip, 4 guys and 20 hits of shiva. The youngest of the bunch took off really early, and SWIM took off after his other friends, but the difference in timing caused a separation, it was later corrected when we were all fully tripping. Music and art abound. I came to a personal revelation about LSD that will cause me to probably never take it again. I love the psychedelic experience but I have a philosphy I want to apply. Take the idea of a tablespoon of sugar, and an orange containing the same amount of sugar, but not refined version. The sugar is essential for life but in context of the orange it is wholey more healthy and contains more natural energy. Such is the same is LSD and natural psychedelics, LSD being a synthesized psychedelic that does a lot of the same things, but not in context (of spirituality, primal aspect). In the end I realize how normal for us to have done that, lsd is essentially the psychedelic of our western culture, something every culture in history has used to enrich their culture. that being said it is a reflection upon the society in which it was created, being very synthesized and seperated from nature. That being said, its time to start buying more mushrooms and dmt!
I can kinda see your point here. But it's alot different since it is not a health aspect. I don't think you'd get any more "healthy" revelations/experiences from dosing on shrooms or another natural psychedelic over Acid. I don't know of anything (bad) acid can cause that shrooms/dmt/etc can't cause you know? Maybe im missing the point though. I do understand your point that Acid is made and Shrooms are found though. I have a similar idea when I decide what drug's i'll try and whatnot. Like I know i'll never do crack and meth etc. Though that has alot to do with being twacked out the rest of my life lol. You know? I know I was lightweight proud that I had done acid when I first dosed because I felt like I was "one" with everyone who dosed in the 60's/70's.
you're falling for the natural/synthetic fallacy. this way of thinking fails because it doesn't acknowledge the fact that the creators of "synthetics", and their creativity, and their vision and thirst for these things, is just as natural as a mushroom growing in a field. plastic is a natural product of the universe
the age of considering "natural" to mean "of the earth without man's intervention" is long past man is as natural as a bird, and our actions are like the grass growing we're moving forward, lsd is what our race invented for itself, be a part of it, or be left behind
Most RC's are wholly synthetic. There main molecular structure does not exist outside of the lab. LSD is technically a semi-synthetic substance. The main molecular structure does exist in nature, lysergic acid amide or LSA. It occurs naturally in Morning Glory, Hawaiian Baby Woodrose and Ergot fungus, to name a few. All of which produce psychedelic effects when ingested and can be used to make LSD-25. LSA has just been "tweaked" a little to arrive at the molecule we know as LSD-25. So the idea of it not being natural is not correct.
it's as natural as the brain that thought of it and the humans that carried it out. it's a line that's really hard to define... where do you consider nature ending? as soon as something new is created? humans are natural creatures just like anything else, and we carry out our tasks just like anything else. though i do agree partly, just because i do think there is something nice about taking a plant or fungus or herb in it's absolute form and experiencing it for everything it has to offer. beyond that, though, i don't think it really matters. it's easy to forget that we ourselves are just a bunch of chemical reactions. when a drug hits the brain, that's all it can be. when we "experience god", that's all it can be. of course, that doesn't suggest that nothing means anything. but i think, for that reason, it's kind of silly to discount the value of something just because it's "synthetic". it's all the same thing, and if you're making ayahuasca for a ritual then follow what you would for that, and if you're dropping a tab of synthetic LSD then follow what you would for that.
The point is in the pursuit that caused the creation of LSD. It is my belief psychedelic drugs are here intentionally for us to use, but does it mean ones we make in the lab have equal energy to that of an organically naturally grown psychedelic? in order for LSD to be a spiritual experience, you have to give it that context, whereas with a grown psychedelic that spirituality is already there (im arguing the inherent spiritual nature and energy of natural psychedelics). I argue that western culture is not more civilized and better than man before him. The fact that anyone needed a lab to make stuff thats already out there is a faulty pursuit. I think that this is extended through the psychedelic of choice of our culture. There are thousands of psychedelics out there that are totally naturally grown and not modified, yet we for some rediculous reason found the desire to synthesize all the context out of the psychedelic to just produce cold and stale psychedelia, thus making the drug more fitting to the social conditioning we perpetuate upon ourselves in our culture (lsd=party drug). This i view as negative and an exploitation of the true meaning of a psychedelic experience, and I will relate my choice to stop LSD to the same reason i stopped drinking alcohol.
i completely disagree. at this point it's really just an interesting discussion (which i'm glad you posted about because this is a very interesting thread i think) and your choice to use or not use LSD is entirely up to you. but from the discussion standpoint, i think that LSD is most definitely not a party drug unless you try to use it that way, and even then i think it has the tendency to creep up on you when you try to abuse it as such. i do not think that LSD is cold and stale in the slightest. the peak of my heaviest dose experience was one of total humanity and total comfort in my mind and my world, in fact it was a very warm and familiar place of total love. i found it to be the exact opposite of cold and stale. mushrooms provide a mushroom experience, a cactus provides a certain experience, and LSD provides a certain experience. i think they all have a place, as they are all psychedelics but they all offer different interpretations.
1st point: You make it sound as though LSD was first made for it's psychedelic properties. LSD-25 was first made in 1938 in a series, the 25th in that series, of research with ergot alkaloids exploring their properties as substances that induce labor to ease childbirth and to stop uterine hemorrhage. Both of which have been traditional uses of ergot for centuries. The psychedelic properties were only accidentally discovered in 1943 when Hoffman revisited his research on those alkaloids. You are completely wrong regarding the intent of creating LSD. 2nd point: You are also basing you views on very erroneous assumptions about the "inherent spirituality" of any substance, natural or man made. To make an assumption that a plant or chemical is spiritual is wrong because the spirituality that we ascribe the substance sis Dependant on our responses to their effects. It is the human animal that possess' any type of spirituality, not the plant or chemical substance. You seem to forget or are unaware of the fact that a lot of the early research into the "spirituality" of substances like mescaline or psilocybin mushrooms were conducted with SYNTHETIC mescaline not cactus, and SYNTHETIC psilocibin, not mushrooms. Even so many of the participants still experienced what they termed a "spiritual" insight, for many life changing. The spirituality of any experience is sourced from within the individual, not the chemical substance. As far as context is concerned that is the whole idea about set and setting. I like taking psychedelics in natural forms, it makes me feel more connected to them and to their history of use, but that is something that I bring to the experience , not the substance. I could bring the same mindset and expectations to an LSD experience as well, and I have as have countless others. Honestly I feel the main thing you are exhibiting in this thread is your lack of knowledge and information about psychedelics in general. That really isn't a bad thing except when you start to make the type of proclamations that you have which are based on personal opinion and that opinion is based on limited and incomplete information.
Psychedelics have been used for thousands of years in almost all cultures around the world. They were not being used much here in the west and we got to a point where this experience was really needed and so I believe LSD came at exactly the right time and in exactly the right form. It had to be created in a lab for our culture to be interested in it, if it was something grown naturally it probably would have been considered barbaric back then and not much research would have went in to any psychedelics. LSD had to be synthetic in order for our plastic culture to have any interest in it. Its just another way of nature working in a culture that is not interested in nature. I believe that humanity is supposed to have the psychedelic experience, so one way or another it will become available to them, even if they refuse natures gifts, thats why LSD showed up. All the other natural psychedelics became known to the white man because of the initial interest in LSD. So thank you LSD
thanks for the bump, i didn't see this before. i always have to refute the idea that natural chems are superior. the mushroom contains probably a hundred or so chemicals inside it's flesh. 3 or 4 might be psychoactive. if you take pure synthesized 4-ho-dmt (psilocin, right?) why would that be any more harmful. sure it could be a bad synth, or be impure, but the mushroom isn't "pure" either. and the ones we eat probably grow inside some dudes basement. on the other hand, i can slightly understand what you mean. maybe it was "meant to be" that we ingets mushrooms that grow right next to us. maybe we co-evolved? but a couple times on mushrooms, i envisioned that they wanted me to lay down and die and grow on my remains. natural does not equal good or synthetic bad
The sugar to the orange is not a good metaphor to LSD. The refined sugar to an orange thing is more like, extracted pure DMT to the vine from which it comes. LSD has no counterpart in nature, it is not an extract. It's a completely new technology. Where pure DMT and refined sugar exist in nature and are extracts. LSD is not, LSD is like a new advanced technology in the world of nature. What the computer is to a plant, LSD is too in the same light that to a plant. It's a completely foreign man-made technological advancement. Terence McKenna made a good point once concerning nano-technology where he said that, when you are designing and synthesizing geometric molecules to fit into specific geometric slots in the synapses of your brain, you are essentially creating nanotechnology. I see LSD in this fashion. Not as an extract or a refinement, but as a nanotechnology, I see it as like the internet, only that it plugs straight into your brain. So the question for me concerning the health of LSD is not, is an extract healthy? But rather, is technology healthy? And I don't know. Even in that context technology can be very detrimental, and so could LSD. I know that for every bit my computer aids me, it also retards me. I do personally find all natural psychedellics superior though, not on any principle, or because they aren't refined or extracted. But natural psychedellics have a soul, a spirit. Mushrooms have a very distinct presence of a spirit, a personality of the mushroom. So does cactus, so does marijuana. LSD appears to have no soul to me. LSD is just empty space, LSD is the void.
Who cares if it's synthesized or not? I'd rather take acid than mushrooms any day because I feel like I can count on it being a good dose. I've had experiences with mushrooms where they have been completely too strong, and I have had far too many experiences where they have been too weak, or completely useless. Plus they have all that strychnine and shit, don't they? I know LSD does sometimes, but I feel like it's far more consistent and trustworthy than shrooms.
:smilielol5: Try to have some knowledge of the subject before posting with an attitude. Neither mushrooms or LSD contain strychnine. Read a book why don't you.
