War? I thought it was going to be like friendly competition amongst friends 🤨. 🤣😂😅

What is misunderstood about perception is that our brain in fact doesn't do anything but perception. Neurons are connected to our environment, but also to themselves. Neurons as a whole system can work together to perceive that which is imperceptible by the separate functions of the brain. Our eyes are part of our brain, and we can perceive much more than just the visual spectrum of light with them.

I like the way the term programming is used. I think it translates to baggage as well. The danger of not taking LSD is to remain in confusion that this programming or baggage is who we are.

The part of the book that refers to the CIA and pedophiles is ineffective I think. Even though LSD is qualified as a class one hard drug, it is broadly used by many nonetheless. The nature of the substance is that although it is difficult to create, once you do create it you have tens of millions of doses that are hard to detect and easy to distribute. Enforcing LSD has been a pipe dream from the first legislation. I think this book would have greater reach if it simply talked about the methods of using LSD as a teacher instead of wandering off into the anger and frustration at the system or the powers that be.

The aim of working towards higher doses is not correct in my opinion. The threshold of deep diving is much lower for most users I know. To me it is the mindset of the user that limits the ability to learn from the profound experiences given during inebriation. Besides that, clinical studies have indicated the correlation between intelligence and the effect of LSD on the user. Talking about hopelessly low doses is suggestive and false. 200µg is enough for me to pick up where I left off and enough to do serious work. Defining micro-dosing would also have been helpful, typically doses under 50µg are considered a micro-dose. Micro-dosing is a technique that is usable for various situations that can’t be studied, nor self-studied, on higher doses. I wouldn’t disregard micro-dosing as a fad.

Reading further along I’m starting to dislike the overall negative approach of the book, sulking in frustration and kicking at the rocks in front of the writer's feet. Now at page 27 I have not found a tool or method to speak of, but mere bitching and conjecture. Dismissing the profession of therapy is laughable. I know enough people who become memory impaired by LSD, which is an absolute horror. Suggesting that anyone whatsoever can experience high doses of LSD is conjecture and harmful. LSD Zen master is not something I would like to become after reading this book, it sounds to me as a pretentious term for a person who is stuck in a negative delusion of needing to convince others of all the wrong in the world. The book has a naive unholistic mechanistic approach to explaining. I never liked Leary, he was the hype creator that destroyed more than he created, always stuck in negativity and kicking at authority. In the beginning of the book the writer says: “You are your own authority.” But at every turn of the page I’m reading the opposite. From authority claiming size of dose, disqualifying therapy, saying wild sessions are for those who have done 200+ sessions.

The mindset that this book is missing is ‘large system thinking’, use of the holistic paradigm, something the author seems incapable of. The mechanistic paradigm is a hard one to free yourself from, it is one of the greatest lessons LSD has provided me. I wonder why this so-called LSD Zen master hasn’t understood it for what it is.

Thank you, I'll read it

Did you find this quote yourself or use keywords?

Despair.com

The only recent one is the first one, all others were done years ago cos I don’t really draw anymore 🤷🏽‍♀️ (well, maybe once in a blue moon). Thought I’d share them anyway.

#artstr

gm ☕️☀️

Wow, that was a long response. Thank you.

My questions were meant to be rhetorical, but thanks for your definition.

Generally well made and comprehensive analysis.

We need to focus more on doing than influencing. Our mutual beekeeping nostrer is a prime example. She “does” and will hopefully tell us about it. That is a good influencer irrelevant of the cause.

A less noble influencer is one that doesn’t and tells people about it.

I’d like to start a discussion about influencers and I like it to be fair and balanced and without any hate or love.

What is an influencer? What are they trying to influence and why?

If they have an agenda, for example, a political lobbyist and wish to change a law that is unjust, say apartheid in South Africa, great that is a noble cause.

If they are an independent representative of a clothes or fashion brand and they are using their personality to promote one brand over another in order to make a living. That’s fine, providing it is transparent and an honest relationship on both sides (the brand and the customers).

If they are filling a hole in their lives by pretending to live a life that is not real in order to cover a life that is unfulfilled, then let’s try to help.

If you truly live a fulfilled life, you have no need to influence or be influenced. I think that is the goal we all seek.

👍 I had one active but it broke… No idea why or when and i did not recognize it.

Bad experience and not able to fulfill the needs of non techies.