PROBLEMS TO REGISTER? CAN'T POST? - PLEASE EMAIL US HERE!!

THIS IS AN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY BASED SUPPORT FORUM FOR HARM MINIMIZATION ONLY. NO SOURCING, DEALING OR UNLICENSED VENDOR LINKS.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Chemical thoughts

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Chemical thoughts

    I wrote this Friday night a few hours after double-dropping E=XTC. As for the first sentence, I started off writing on the backside of a page of paper. It starts off sorta personal, then broadens.

    Why bother to write on the right side if my eyes alone absorb these words? And what will they mean to me when this is all over? It means so much to me right now. I figured it out. I would rather exist as an impression than to be relegated to loneliness as after presenting who I really am. How many people are okay with people being in such a flux? How many people are willing to understand, to cast away preconceived notions?

    Do I know that people close themselves off, or do I close myself off because I think they don't appreciate me? Why can't people SEE? Why do our perceptions cloud everything? Who really knows? We don't know ourselves. We can't know others. We wear faces because of meaningless things that dehumanize us, so people can never really see us for something worthwhile if they merely see a disembodied reaction--if your life is just being fed up with everything and that defines you.

    But who am I outside of life? Like makes us. Or if we exist outside of it, we are merely concepts, not actualities. What happens when we strive with so many misplaced travesties of passion to construct ourselves as these ideals? We can never reach them, can we? Ideals don't act, react, interact. They are isolated in the mind that created them. Only we can see them, can verify ourselves in them. Will I suddenly become my ideal if my form is something I can love? Some people are shallow, but if they didn't value me before, changing my image won't allow them to see what it means to me. They can't see it was all so that they could really see me, not avert their eyes.

    But maybe I do this to myself... I would like to think that it doesn't matter. It doesn't. They don't mean anything if somehow your worth, your inner worth can be measured by a physical form. What are our forms but physiological embodiments, vessels of communicating our minds? Why do we try? Why do we care about our physical appearances when they are mere constructs contingent on so many external factors that are too complex for us to master? We should see each other naked, and not see flesh. Yes, the anatomical can be beautiful, but what is beauty without a living, breathing passion?

    Our bodies are just a collection of molecules, the physical manifestation of chemical reactions. We can try to change them, but it is really our minds that we want to perfect. My self is not a slave to my body! My body is a mundane incarnation! It is really the mind, the mind! The vast and beautiful, frustratingly complex...macrocosm. We are a universe. Our minds are so boundless.

    And what good is a beautiful mind to itself? Perceiving is not life. We aren't static. It means nothing to take in beauty but to never give anything in return. Life does everything for us. Biological processes and natural laws... But we have the power to give something back that is not a mere formula. We can't just give back what we created. There is no reciprocity, no maturation, no unfurling. Just a mindless reshuffling, giving something that was never ours. It is not a contribution. It is the maintenance of stagnation in a thriving world that we can express in the human element...that special inherent quality that gives us the potential to create, but really to express the inexpressible. To theorize about the unknown in a way that is beautiful, that transcends our calculated constructs.

    Is this really some form of learning if it only exists because of an altered state? When it wanes, I do not continue writing, feeling, and perceiving as I did. What is the point to engage in a metamorphosis where you become a butterfly fleetingly only to return to the same cocoon, with someone no hope of ever completing your purpose? How is it that I can use this as a means of coming to knowledge if it never lasts long enough for me to unlock things with it? Do we simply deviate from a stagnant “normality” to be stagnant in “abnormality”? We see things that were either never there or always were, yet only so briefly. And although you could remember and reflect, and even try to live by these fashioned philosophies, they don't have the same meaning in “normal” existence. The words I have written mean everything to me at this time. I both understand and do not at the same time. I am open to these new channels of information. I have had revelations. But unfortunately, life doesn't immortalize what words try to. And actions that occur in this state can NEVER be replicated in our “normal” existence.

    What does it mean that a chemical reaction could make me greater than I am, that something so formulaic could make me transcend formulas and reactions? What does it mean for one to be so vulnerable to something outside of itself? What is our purpose if we can be changed so? What is our true nature? If a chemical reaction could alter us so profoundly, we could never be one thing. But this is good! We are a potentiality for being anything...if this anything can be induced by the introduction of reagents and catalysts. So in this way, we are somehow infinite in concept but finite in actuality. We could be anything if a sequence of calculated events worked out for it to be that way.

    But yet, if this were the case, every experience with the same drug would be the same. That is to say that the body and its functions can supersede the introduced chemical. In that way, it is not formulaic because there are too many variables to account for. Interesting how the state of the mind, independent of bodily function can alter what should happen according to chemistry. But yet, these drugs aren't really an absolute, are they? They cannot be in possession of the same qualities because they are synthesized. One could remake the same bonds and chains and induce the same reactions, but one scientific reaction isn't an island. It isn't just itself, a fact, and closed.

    Science rewrites science. Reactions can always further react. There is nothing definite, nothing absolute. Everything is contingent. And yet, how could something exist as merely a cause of another's existence? What could exist without something on which to act? How could there be a god? How could there just be inert properties that suddenly took life? Religion, no religion. It doesn't matter. There's still the question of how something formulative could exist. It is a cycle. The existence of one thing is always in relation to another. This is not to say that it is defined AS being like or dissimilar to another. But if something exists to account for another's existence, where do we get? What do we come to but an endless cycle of not knowing, of not defining? A defining object has to have definition itself, otherwise it cannot define another.

    Nothing that is known, or rather a something of which nothing is known, could provide knowledge for another. So “God created man”. But what created god? Where is the dichotomy between religious doctrine and scientific theory? Could one not say that god is the natural laws of the universe? And yet there could be no laws with no universe! Full circle. Qualifiable and quantifiable particles with inherent chemical properties or a disembodied standard that somehow formulated an incarnation. How could there just be a standard??

    Maybe there was no beginning. Why make a fuss about this supposed creation, divine or natural? Would it not make sense to say we always were, if you can say a creator or force always was? Do we not have the same qualities, the need to be formed and fashioned from something? Science—is it really knowledge if we are products of it? How could we explain a creator as a creation? How could one give meaning to something that already exists? We are limited by our own capacities. We really just give a material form to preceding actions. We do not explain their existence.

    Do we really perceive them if we filled the unknown with concepts of what could be? We are somehow aware of something outside of us, but we do not EXPLAIN it, only name it. Formulas and words are the result of perceiving something already there. But let's say formulas—math—always existed. They were there already. Not created. Then how do we begin to try to explain what predated us? How is it that we could be suddenly receptive to this force? How could the mind see what is before it, outside of it, without actually interacting with it, or being able to explain the interaction?

    Let's just say that we are all gods if we achieve nothing by saying that there is just one, or perhaps multiple, that are not us. We are gods! We are creators! We created ourselves when we defined something that created us in our own terms. If not gods ourselves, we created god with our own constructs! And all this serves to say that no one knows. One can only construct.

    How silly it would be to dwell in stagnation, to invest oneself fully to a singular idea never, ever to know any one thing. We've come thousands of years to never, ever know anything. Knowledge is always evolving. Yet this life is contingent... Be content in not knowing, for if we knew, we would cease to be. We won't ever know what the future holds because we won't be active in it. How silly then life seems to be to exist without evolving, to merely pass through this strange passage of time and space while existing merely to be compounded when we are no more. And if we were not to define time and space, would we live forever?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I could study chemistry, physics, biology, every -ology, every gnostic discipline and come up with some answers to these. But then they too are merely contingent constructs. We cannot know, but we cannot cease to try. Apparently, things become redefined whether we note them or not. Be content in yourselves, ye creators! We cannot explain our existence with our creations, so just delight in being. Whatever that is.

    This here is no different than the works of scholars—page upon page written to simply explain nothing. But this means everything, doesn't it? Or maybe everything is nothing. Maybe they are overlapping. Everything is nothing without an initial nothingness. And a notion of nothing would mandate a thing to negate. One thing could be every thing, everything.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    england
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    soudns like you had a hell of a night! deeply philosophical

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    It was one hell of a night! I love those things.
    And this doesn't even make any mentioning of the incredible empathy I was feeling.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    .uK
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    It's really quite beautiful.

    By the way, a forum for 'Alternative Thinking' is such a brilliant idea!
    ColouR

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Beautiful? That's a strange adjective.
    Thanks, though.

    And yeah, it's a really awesome idea. I'm guessing McKenna-esque stuff will crop up here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    .uK
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashxcore View Post
    Beautiful? That's a strange adjective.
    Most things lyrical or philisophical in any way, shape or form is instantly deemed beautiful in my eyes recently, I blame my psychedelic travels!
    ColouR

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Damn ash you make me feel like i'm incredibly dumb. Too many big words ahhhhh.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I think I'd be too lazy to read a post such as this one without being in the mood for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gloombringer View Post
    Damn ash you make me feel like i'm incredibly dumb. Too many big words ahhhhh.
    I surely hope not!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    973
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 129 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    Amazing post, very impressive ashxcore. Pleased to have you on board at LHF!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •