back in the 80's i read *the doors of perception* and decided i had to try lsd. my friend was also interested so one sunday we set aside the entire day to drop acid and confront reality head on. at the time i was really into drawing and had brought a pad of really nice linen paper with me but i never got around to drawing. i did, however, write something down that i thought was very profound and after considering it for some time i handed it to my friend and said "check this out." he was mesmerized. i'm not exaggerating when i say he concentrated on it for what seemed like hours. the whole time i was thinking that i had really stumbled across a capital letter truth, something really important. i couldn't stand waiting so finally i asked him what he thought of what i'd written. he gives me this funny look and asked me what i was talking about. it turns out he had never read what i wrote down and was instead fascinated by the watermark on the very nice linen paper i had used! truly one of the greatest truths i've ever discovered.
yes! it can be challenging at times to operate in this world with this understanding... i'm sure that your moment there was both devistating and liberating
Fantastic video as always, a really great and easy to understand overview of Leary's and others' sometimes pretty convoluted philosophies. Still every time I hear the psychedelic experience described in Leary's view, it makes me cringe a little inside, because he always seems to imply that is the one way psychedelics affect the mind for everyone, or at least that this is what they are meant to do. It's incredibly frustrating to me because he is spot on in some of his descriptions, but then his subjective religious views and, lets be honest, sometimes patently bizarre hypothesis mix in and muddy the whole. Maybe I'm expecting too much of the 60s, when the understanding of neuroscience was only a sliver compared to today. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, you only presented his views as they were! I would really really love if you could perhaps make a video on the "up to date", scientific view on how psychedelics function, disconnected from the heavily mysticism influenced descriptions of the 60s. I think it might make a great final video of this series. I'd be more than happy to provide you with ample citations to help in your research, if you decide to do so!
I'll keep it in mind. The final chapter will discuss why the age of psychedelia is over, and I guess part of it is that we have better scientific knowledge.
I actually disagree with that statement! We are living in an age of HUGE resurgence in interest in psychedelics, especially in academia (though I, subjectively, feel there is also a growing resurgence in interest among the youth/public), thanks to organizations like MAPS and countries like Switzerland. In the last 10 years we have seen huge strides in psychedelics being more accepted as something that might be positive, with successful studies showing effects everywhere from stress reduction in terminal cancer patients to persistent psychological shifts towards more openness in healthy individuals, not to mention after decades of fighting, the first fMRI scan of an active brain on psychedelics has been done just a few years ago. Understanding the neuroscience I believe is an invaluable step to the reemergence of the psychedelic experience as a modern, powerful, and profoundly human tool in our arsenal to make life worth living. The only thing better than a powerful tool is a powerful tool you understand.
You are talking about using hallucinogens for therapeutic/recreational purposes. The psychedelic movement actually thought it was going to bring Utopia. That age is over, but it did enrich our world with many things that I shall discuss.
Tomorrow never knows 🦅⚡️🐉…brilliant please put another 🪵 on the 🔥 for me! Five years… I thought I saw you in an ice cream parlour drinking milkshakes cold and long. Very good work and timeless flight and a great shout from you, a great detour for me. Thank you.
I started smoking weed in high school (I know not as strong but) I was taking music appreciation and we where doing chorale harmony and I experience a similar experience to Aldous Huxley in that I could easily recognize and enjoy the individual lines (I forget the term)
This is quite an interesting study / synthesis; thank you. Even people like Marx, who think they're onto something really big & basic, are simply the product of their times & their society! It's clear to me that there are always people who rebel against their societies. Whether that becomes a movement depends, I suppose, on any number of things. But to use a musical example, look at modern American "alternative rock" music. It was a direct response to the excesses of 80s rock; particularly to 'hair metal', which was the establishment. It is instructive to note that since then, alternative has become the new standard; in other words, it's now the establishment. But before anyone says, "Yay! The rebels won!", take heed. Now that alternative is king, it's already becoming fat on its own spoils. Which means (naturally) that it's only a matter of time before there's a new rebel out there. And so on, and so on. This trend applies equally to philosophies (and many, many other things, of course.) It's a general pattern. Even Einstein's Special & General Relativity were simply a reworking of Newtonian physics, based on two simple guiding principles I won't go into here (your welcome!) It was in quantum mechanics where the new breed of physicist really went mad, in a sense - literally throwing out the rule book & asking "What does this really mean?" 100 years later, we're still trying to answer that question, mostly because that really is one of the big, big questions. At any rate, patterns emerge in any & all societies, wherein the establishment tries to maintain its dominance; some rebel, though most don't; both sides are often unhappy to some degree (though those on the establishment side try fiendishly & desperately to hide it - even from themselves; and no one seems able to find the really big truths (whatever those may be!), excepting a few individuals here & there. It is perhaps notable that those who do seem able to find something genuine for themselves seem to exist on the liberal side; a surprising number are gay or bisexual, and most are liberal or leftist; many work in arts & entertainment (ironically consumed avidly by the conservative establishment!) But even such terms as liberal & conservative are largely based on the simple idea of conservative = establishment, regardless of what that establishment is or does. Here in good ole America, everyone (seemingly) worships the almighty dollar. The tragedy is that unbridled capitalism - especially when coupled with rampant entrenched bureaucracy - is pretty much a double-whammy. On top of the fact that the rich get richer (etc.), we're in serious danger of a very rude awakening. People are very dissatisfied. But only fringe groups (mostly based on hate and/or fascism) seem able to capitalize (to use a perhaps unfortunate phrase!) on it. Thus we wind up with the words "President Donald Trump", which should honestly never be said in any language in any universe in the quantum continuum. But it's just part of the larger American political morass, where the next guy is always supposed to save us from the (you guessed it!) "establishment." Politicians - like Hollywood - will keep doing it because it works! Meanwhile, everybody's unhappy on some level, still - either because they can't possibly buy enough stuff, or they can't figure out how to get off the career treadmill, or because their religion isn't cutting it, or, well, fill in the blank, really. Go figure. In the end, rebels can only rebel against whatever's already out there. That's a limiting factor in itself. Enough for now! Thanks. tavi.
I don't know what to say, i just find your comment so interesting and expresses things I think i certainly thought about somehow, without being able to see it clearly or something I don't know.. thanks for this great text! bye
@@dazdaz6487 Thanks. You can read all sorts of political &/or philosophical tomes, I suppose, but I'd have to say all of my above comments apply to them as well. I'd recommend the Dune books. The 6 originals by Frank Herbert have a singular quality of cutting right thru so many things (politics, philosophy, religion, psychology, etc.) They will light you up! I've read thru them dozens of times, and I still get something out of them each time. tavi.
@@richarddeese1991 THanks for the book suggestion, they've been on my reading list for a while, I'll let them 'overtake' (idk the right verb, but maybe this one is acceptable) the other books of the list so they'll be read sooner than expected (but my reading list is quite chaotic so they're not really overtaking but rather overshadowing. Do you have any other book recommendations which "cut through so many things"? as I'm fascinated by so many things, these books are like paper heaven to me! Btw, what does tavi mean? I hope it doesn't mean Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation ^^
@@dazdaz6487 It's short for "Rikki Tikki Tavi". It's the only nickname I'd let people call me when I was young, as I love that cartoon. There're a whole lot of great sci-fi and/or fantasy books out there, from classic to modern. Not to mention non-fiction! Authors I've read include Roger Zelanzy (the Amber novels, which are 2 sets of 5 short novels), Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle, and others. A book reviewer once said of Zelanzy that he, "...breaks rules most other writers only suspect exist." The Mote in God's Eye by Niven & Pournelle is superlative. I first started reading "grown-up" novels in 7th grade, as I got Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth at a book sale at school. I've found out about books ove1r the years by just talking to others. Enjoy! tavi.
(Just going on a bit of a tangent here) Regarding your criticism of Buddhism's pessimistic worldview, Julius Evola in his book "The Doctrine of Awakening" also criticised the pessimistic and overly speculative or overly prevalent ethical-monastic element in the later developments of Buddhism. His book is a systematic treatise on what he puts forward as the more original form of Buddhism, which has its closer approximation in the Zen tradition. It presents a good counter balance to how Buddhism is commonly perceived in the West, ascribing to it a more active, virile ideal - which you may find more agreeable. Great video btw!
Alcohol, cannabis, amphetamine, Opiates, all used by musicians in America. Jazz musicians in the 1950s particularly prone to heroin. Miles Davis and john Coltrane only achieved greatness by cleaning up their act and going clean.
You have a very superficial understanding on Buddhism. Mine is not that great either, but even I saw obvious holes in your material ;) Having said that - good video, great series, keep it going:)
Again, not an expert, not religious in any way, so this is just what I've read/heard in lectures. The suffering part, you make an impression that buddhists think life is suffering, with an emphasis that it is not enjoyable. And it's not like that it's more like being fully aware that everything, suffering, pleasure, the state of being distracted, or a state of being angry is a temporary thing. That too will pass. And suffering is part of this everything. You cannot avoid suffering as much as you can avoid being thirsty. You don't cling to it, thus inducing even more suffering. And I don't know if I fully agree with them, being a hedonist myself:) edit: plus Tibetan buddhism does not equal buddhism, there are two 'wheels' of buddhism. Tibetan one is more straight religion type - with metaphysics and pope-people and all the bells and whistles.. quite literally =)
Yes, the Buddhists want to train themselves to detach from the ever-changing daily life. But *why* do they want to detach? Because if you don't detach, if you get involved, you will suffer. And what it detachment? It is a state of non-suffering, like I said. That is what they aspire to: non-suffering. I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but whenever people tell me I'm wrong about it, they fail to show me how I'm wrong. The Buddhist does acknowledge that there are pleasures in life, but claims that you suffer even in those pleasures because you know they won't last. So, again, it appears that they perceive the essence of life as suffering.
This amature documetary has an extremely high quality. The Buddhist explanations given in it though, are absolute utter nonsense. Should the creator be interested in clear teachings, I can provide understanding.
@@zarathustrasserpent1850 Again, I want to say that I consider your docu to be of very high quality. You apparently educated yourself well. My answer will be short so obviously it will be incomplete. I will have another close look at your video. But first, Buddhism would not make you suffer from individuality, but it acknowledges that in contrast to absolute, unlimited joy or happyness, everything could be considered suffering. Further that all apperent suffering is caused by the absolute focus on the ego.
@@zarathustrasserpent1850 Many people, likely almost everybody, are not aware of the fact that their are three different schools in Buddhism, respectively with different views and also aspirations. Their adding to each other. Each with a higher with. The general description that was first given here refers to the mist simple school, which would only be applied by people who are suffering and or lack mental capacity. There are two more. In these the aim is different.
back in the 80's i read *the doors of perception* and decided i had to try lsd. my friend was also interested so one sunday we set aside the entire day to drop acid and confront reality head on. at the time i was really into drawing and had brought a pad of really nice linen paper with me but i never got around to drawing. i did, however, write something down that i thought was very profound and after considering it for some time i handed it to my friend and said "check this out."
he was mesmerized. i'm not exaggerating when i say he concentrated on it for what seemed like hours. the whole time i was thinking that i had really stumbled across a capital letter truth, something really important. i couldn't stand waiting so finally i asked him what he thought of what i'd written.
he gives me this funny look and asked me what i was talking about. it turns out he had never read what i wrote down and was instead fascinated by the watermark on the very nice linen paper i had used! truly one of the greatest truths i've ever discovered.
yes! it can be challenging at times to operate in this world with this understanding... i'm sure that your moment there was both devistating and liberating
Keep up the good work. You inspired me to research turkish 68 generation
Great series
I agree. Can't wait for it to continue.
There's 17 parts now(!) I also can't wait for it to continue, these videos are very accurate and informing!
Why isn't this on the BBC?
Fantastic video as always, a really great and easy to understand overview of Leary's and others' sometimes pretty convoluted philosophies. Still every time I hear the psychedelic experience described in Leary's view, it makes me cringe a little inside, because he always seems to imply that is the one way psychedelics affect the mind for everyone, or at least that this is what they are meant to do. It's incredibly frustrating to me because he is spot on in some of his descriptions, but then his subjective religious views and, lets be honest, sometimes patently bizarre hypothesis mix in and muddy the whole. Maybe I'm expecting too much of the 60s, when the understanding of neuroscience was only a sliver compared to today. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, you only presented his views as they were! I would really really love if you could perhaps make a video on the "up to date", scientific view on how psychedelics function, disconnected from the heavily mysticism influenced descriptions of the 60s. I think it might make a great final video of this series. I'd be more than happy to provide you with ample citations to help in your research, if you decide to do so!
I'll keep it in mind. The final chapter will discuss why the age of psychedelia is over, and I guess part of it is that we have better scientific knowledge.
I actually disagree with that statement! We are living in an age of HUGE resurgence in interest in psychedelics, especially in academia (though I, subjectively, feel there is also a growing resurgence in interest among the youth/public), thanks to organizations like MAPS and countries like Switzerland. In the last 10 years we have seen huge strides in psychedelics being more accepted as something that might be positive, with successful studies showing effects everywhere from stress reduction in terminal cancer patients to persistent psychological shifts towards more openness in healthy individuals, not to mention after decades of fighting, the first fMRI scan of an active brain on psychedelics has been done just a few years ago. Understanding the neuroscience I believe is an invaluable step to the reemergence of the psychedelic experience as a modern, powerful, and profoundly human tool in our arsenal to make life worth living. The only thing better than a powerful tool is a powerful tool you understand.
You are talking about using hallucinogens for therapeutic/recreational purposes. The psychedelic movement actually thought it was going to bring Utopia. That age is over, but it did enrich our world with many things that I shall discuss.
Oh I see what you mean, apologies, it's so easy to mix up what these words mean. Can't wait for your next video!
Another great video :)
Tomorrow never knows 🦅⚡️🐉…brilliant please put another 🪵 on the 🔥 for me! Five years… I thought I saw you in an ice cream parlour drinking milkshakes cold and long. Very good work and timeless flight and a great shout from you, a great detour for me. Thank you.
I started smoking weed in high school (I know not as strong but) I was taking music appreciation and we where doing chorale harmony and I experience a similar experience to Aldous Huxley in that I could easily recognize and enjoy the individual lines (I forget the term)
This is quite an interesting study / synthesis; thank you. Even people like Marx, who think they're onto something really big & basic, are simply the product of their times & their society! It's clear to me that there are always people who rebel against their societies. Whether that becomes a movement depends, I suppose, on any number of things. But to use a musical example, look at modern American "alternative rock" music. It was a direct response to the excesses of 80s rock; particularly to 'hair metal', which was the establishment. It is instructive to note that since then, alternative has become the new standard; in other words, it's now the establishment. But before anyone says, "Yay! The rebels won!", take heed. Now that alternative is king, it's already becoming fat on its own spoils. Which means (naturally) that it's only a matter of time before there's a new rebel out there. And so on, and so on. This trend applies equally to philosophies (and many, many other things, of course.) It's a general pattern. Even Einstein's Special & General Relativity were simply a reworking of Newtonian physics, based on two simple guiding principles I won't go into here (your welcome!) It was in quantum mechanics where the new breed of physicist really went mad, in a sense - literally throwing out the rule book & asking "What does this really mean?" 100 years later, we're still trying to answer that question, mostly because that really is one of the big, big questions. At any rate, patterns emerge in any & all societies, wherein the establishment tries to maintain its dominance; some rebel, though most don't; both sides are often unhappy to some degree (though those on the establishment side try fiendishly & desperately to hide it - even from themselves; and no one seems able to find the really big truths (whatever those may be!), excepting a few individuals here & there. It is perhaps notable that those who do seem able to find something genuine for themselves seem to exist on the liberal side; a surprising number are gay or bisexual, and most are liberal or leftist; many work in arts & entertainment (ironically consumed avidly by the conservative establishment!) But even such terms as liberal & conservative are largely based on the simple idea of conservative = establishment, regardless of what that establishment is or does. Here in good ole America, everyone (seemingly) worships the almighty dollar. The tragedy is that unbridled capitalism - especially when coupled with rampant entrenched bureaucracy - is pretty much a double-whammy. On top of the fact that the rich get richer (etc.), we're in serious danger of a very rude awakening. People are very dissatisfied. But only fringe groups (mostly based on hate and/or fascism) seem able to capitalize (to use a perhaps unfortunate phrase!) on it. Thus we wind up with the words "President Donald Trump", which should honestly never be said in any language in any universe in the quantum continuum. But it's just part of the larger American political morass, where the next guy is always supposed to save us from the (you guessed it!) "establishment." Politicians - like Hollywood - will keep doing it because it works! Meanwhile, everybody's unhappy on some level, still - either because they can't possibly buy enough stuff, or they can't figure out how to get off the career treadmill, or because their religion isn't cutting it, or, well, fill in the blank, really. Go figure. In the end, rebels can only rebel against whatever's already out there. That's a limiting factor in itself. Enough for now! Thanks. tavi.
I don't know what to say, i just find your comment so interesting and expresses things I think i certainly thought about somehow, without being able to see it clearly or something I don't know.. thanks for this great text! bye
@@dazdaz6487 Thanks. You can read all sorts of political &/or philosophical tomes, I suppose, but I'd have to say all of my above comments apply to them as well. I'd recommend the Dune books. The 6 originals by Frank Herbert have a singular quality of cutting right thru so many things (politics, philosophy, religion, psychology, etc.) They will light you up! I've read thru them dozens of times, and I still get something out of them each time. tavi.
@@richarddeese1991 THanks for the book suggestion, they've been on my reading list for a while, I'll let them 'overtake' (idk the right verb, but maybe this one is acceptable) the other books of the list so they'll be read sooner than expected (but my reading list is quite chaotic so they're not really overtaking but rather overshadowing. Do you have any other book recommendations which "cut through so many things"? as I'm fascinated by so many things, these books are like paper heaven to me! Btw, what does tavi mean? I hope it doesn't mean Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation ^^
@@dazdaz6487 It's short for "Rikki Tikki Tavi". It's the only nickname I'd let people call me when I was young, as I love that cartoon. There're a whole lot of great sci-fi and/or fantasy books out there, from classic to modern. Not to mention non-fiction! Authors I've read include Roger Zelanzy (the Amber novels, which are 2 sets of 5 short novels), Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle, and others. A book reviewer once said of Zelanzy that he, "...breaks rules most other writers only suspect exist." The Mote in God's Eye by Niven & Pournelle is superlative. I first started reading "grown-up" novels in 7th grade, as I got Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth at a book sale at school. I've found out about books ove1r the years by just talking to others. Enjoy! tavi.
(Just going on a bit of a tangent here) Regarding your criticism of Buddhism's pessimistic worldview, Julius Evola in his book "The Doctrine of Awakening" also criticised the pessimistic and overly speculative or overly prevalent ethical-monastic element in the later developments of Buddhism. His book is a systematic treatise on what he puts forward as the more original form of Buddhism, which has its closer approximation in the Zen tradition. It presents a good counter balance to how Buddhism is commonly perceived in the West, ascribing to it a more active, virile ideal - which you may find more agreeable.
Great video btw!
Awesome!
yes! science is based on the senses. inputs... tools... hammers... nails... what is beyond that? how can this be perceived?
great
Alcohol, cannabis, amphetamine, Opiates, all used by musicians in America. Jazz musicians in the 1950s particularly prone to heroin. Miles Davis and john Coltrane only achieved greatness by cleaning up their act and going clean.
Great video!!! Have you taken some sort of psychedelic drugs yourself?
Nope
✌️😁👍
You have a very superficial understanding on Buddhism. Mine is not that great either, but even I saw obvious holes in your material ;) Having said that - good video, great series, keep it going:)
Ok, tell me where you think I'm wrong.
Again, not an expert, not religious in any way, so this is just what I've read/heard in lectures. The suffering part, you make an impression that buddhists think life is suffering, with an emphasis that it is not enjoyable. And it's not like that it's more like being fully aware that everything, suffering, pleasure, the state of being distracted, or a state of being angry is a temporary thing. That too will pass. And suffering is part of this everything. You cannot avoid suffering as much as you can avoid being thirsty. You don't cling to it, thus inducing even more suffering. And I don't know if I fully agree with them, being a hedonist myself:)
edit: plus Tibetan buddhism does not equal buddhism, there are two 'wheels' of buddhism. Tibetan one is more straight religion type - with metaphysics and pope-people and all the bells and whistles.. quite literally =)
Yes, the Buddhists want to train themselves to detach from the ever-changing daily life. But *why* do they want to detach? Because if you don't detach, if you get involved, you will suffer. And what it detachment? It is a state of non-suffering, like I said. That is what they aspire to: non-suffering.
I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but whenever people tell me I'm wrong about it, they fail to show me how I'm wrong. The Buddhist does acknowledge that there are pleasures in life, but claims that you suffer even in those pleasures because you know they won't last. So, again, it appears that they perceive the essence of life as suffering.
Zarathustra's Serpent again, that's not a good summary of the dogma, but I don't know enough to argue here... nor do I care, to be honest;)
Enter the dreamworld! XD
0:32
This amature documetary has an extremely high quality. The Buddhist explanations given in it though, are absolute utter nonsense. Should the creator be interested in clear teachings, I can provide understanding.
Ok, what did I say about Buddhism that was wrong?
@@zarathustrasserpent1850 Again, I want to say that I consider your docu to be of very high quality. You apparently educated yourself well. My answer will be short so obviously it will be incomplete. I will have another close look at your video. But first, Buddhism would not make you suffer from individuality, but it acknowledges that in contrast to absolute, unlimited joy or happyness, everything could be considered suffering. Further that all apperent suffering is caused by the absolute focus on the ego.
@@zarathustrasserpent1850 Many people, likely almost everybody, are not aware of the fact that their are three different schools in Buddhism, respectively with different views and also aspirations. Their adding to each other. Each with a higher with. The general description that was first given here refers to the mist simple school, which would only be applied by people who are suffering and or lack mental capacity. There are two more. In these the aim is different.
@@zarathustrasserpent1850 Anymore questions, I can of course answer them
th-cam.com/video/jzq-W8AlaLk/w-d-xo.html
Get a job, hippy!