Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tralfamadorian

1 ... 6 [7] 8 ... 13
Interzone / Re: Amsterdam to exile human trash
« on: December 05, 2012, 09:47:57 PM »
Now I could understand forcing junkies and other unsavory types into encampments to quarantine societal rot, but for "bullying gay neighbors"? Gimme a fucking break. I hope they meant physically harassing gay neighbors -- I don't want to get dumped in a ghetto for inadvertently calling someone a "fag".

Metal / Re: First metal album
« on: December 05, 2012, 07:11:31 PM »
Fallot, IIRC you told me in the old ANUS chatroom you were a Muslim. How do you reconcile your fascination with evil and the occult with your religion? Or were you trolling?

Metal / Re: First metal album
« on: December 02, 2012, 07:57:49 PM »
I was probably about 12, over at my friend's house, a guitar player. This kid listened mostly to ska and punk rock, but for some reason he was playing the opening riff to Metallica - One. I was enthralled by it. Soon after, I bought ...And Justice for All. At first I thought it was boring and the only song I liked was One for its simple soft-hard songwriting. But seeing as it was the only CD I had, I kept listening to it, and it started to grow on me. I liked how epic and serious it sounded, and the climactic solos sent shivers down my spine. Looking back now, the album is very overwritten and the production is shit, but as a kid the nuances of song structure were well beyond my intellectual ken and I had no point of reference as to what a good production consisted of; all I could do was enjoy it, and enjoy it I did.

Metal / Re: Recommend me some Black Metal
« on: November 27, 2012, 07:53:03 PM »
For flowing melodic metal in the vein of FAFtS, I would recommend Sentenced's North from Here. To be honest the album hasn't aged well for me -- the arrangements come off as unhinged (in both good and bad ways), and they lack the epic climaxes that made Sacramentum's first album so great. Still, the album is respected and you might get something out of it.

Metal / Re: 'One Man Metal' documentary -- Xasthur comes out the closet
« on: November 18, 2012, 10:45:28 PM »
Only if you're an extrovert. If you're an introvert you will feel more and more happy as you spend less time with others.
You misunderstand the concept of introversion and extroversion. It is not a mutually exclusive black and white dichotomy, but more of a spectrum.On this spectrum, most people belong somewhere in the middle, expressing traits of both introversion and extraversion. For example, I consider myself an introvert (as I'm sure most members of Metal Hall do), and I can go a few days without having a real conversation. Longer than that, however, and I start to feel lonely, so I seek out interaction with close friends or family. By the way, interacting with a small group of people considers close to oneself is actually to be expected of an introvert in most personality theories. It's one's interactions with strangers that largely determine whether one is introverted or extroverted -- extreme extroverts are perfectly comfortable with just about any stranger, while extreme introverts will avoid strangers.

So no, being an introvert is not an excuse to be an antisocial miscreant.

Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: November 18, 2012, 10:29:37 PM »
I'm with Bill here, Cargest. Your last post seemed like a sly attempt to say that "I won" without accounting for the many loose ends on your side of the argument.

The evidence Bill provided was strong, but it seems nothing short of witnessing a species evolve into another in the flesh will convince you otherwise. Well, consider this:

We haven't witnessed the continents move thousands of miles, but we have observed them moving in inches every year. From this we can either extrapolate that the continents have moved thousands of miles over millions of years from their original formation as Pangea to their current positions, OR we can say that God magically placed the continents where they are and only allows them to move a few inches or so back and forth. Which makes more sense?

In addition, I'm interested in hearing your response to the following queries:
  • • Why is the absence of fundamentally different life evidence against evolution when carbon is the only viable basis for life?
  • • Why do science and spirituality need to be integrated?
  • • Why does evolution imply physicalism for you? What do you make of the Catholic Church's wholehearted acceptance of evolution?

Interzone / Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
« on: November 18, 2012, 10:07:12 PM »
When the doors are fully opened, and are kept open (which is done through spiritual practice during/after the experiences).
This seems line of thinking seems to equivocate enlightenment with flipping a switch in your brain. In reality, spiritual progress happens daily in imperceptible increments as one hones and refines the mind. Perhaps certain psychedelics can be used as a shortcut to speed up this process, but in most cases seem to become an end in themselves rather than a merely a tool. Besides, what's preventing you from opening those doors without drugs? Living a spiritual life is not exclusive to those who use drugs, and I find that the path of most resistance (ie not taking shortcuts) is the most fruitful path. Drugs are superfluous.

Perhaps they don't need it, but every noble and pious society, with very few exceptions, has used such things.  Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Egyptians, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Aztecs, Mayans (all Native Amerinds, actually) - the list is indefinite, because as more cultures rise after this one's fall, they'll be turning to these sources of knowledge for guidance, just as our ancestors did.
These civilizations were great because of strong leaders and strong value systems, and outside of the Hindus neither of those attributes can said to have been significantly influenced by drugs, at least insofar as the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, and Chinese are concerned(None of the major schools of Greek philosophy encouraged drug use, nor did most sects of Buddhism). The shamans and soothsayers of old probably did more harm than good with due to their promulgation of silly superstitions alongside actual Truth. Drug use--for the sake of spirituality or any other reason--is discouraged by most religions, and for good reason: it is an anachronism that should be left for primitive jungle peoples.

I'm aware that cannabis, for example, should not be taken by adolescents, due to its potentially negative effects on brain development.  However, there seems to be much less, if not no, damage done to a fully formed brain through consuming cannabis (though excessive amounts of CO from smoking can obviously cause problems, like the monkey suffocation they used to parade as "death by marijuana").  I wouldn't want my daughter or son taking any other similar substance until they are physically, mentally, and emotionally mature/healthy enough to make the most out of it.  However, after that point, I can find nothing to suggest that any of these substances might be harmful in any meaningful way, and very much to suggest that their consumption can generate huge benefits for humans.
THC 'dis-orchestrates' the brain and causes schizophrenia-like symptoms.

Furthermore, most of the cannabis users I know (including my -former- self) are lethargic, unmotivated, and live unhealthy lifestyles. Note that I am not accusing you of any of these things. There's always a duck-billed platypus to mess up the nice and neat rules people come up with.

Your assertion that drug-taking cannot enhance IQ is baseless.  You could provide no source for that claim, since we don't yet even know all of the psychedelic narcotics.  As things stand, there are synthetic drugs which increase (temporarily?) your IQ (e.g. nootropics); there may well be naturally occurring substances which do the same (and may even trip you out, maaaan).
I have experimented with nootropics such as piracetam and aniracetam, and while they did provide a high kinda sorta like marijuana, what with enhanced perception of colors and more abstract thinking but minus any euphoria or body high, in the end all they did was make me psychotic. Not smarter. I did a lot of research on those drugs, and not once did I encounter a reliable source for the claim that such drugs increased IQ.

There is a paucity of research on the effects of drugs on IQ. But seeing as it is mostly genetic, and that the part that is experiential is done developing by the end of childhood, common sense informs me that drugs cannot raise IQ. I wouldn't be surprised if they lowered IQ, though.

Furthermore, the more I understand, the less important IQ is.  It is a measure of intelligence, but is not intelligence itself; at that, it cannot denote wisdom, and the wisest might appear to have no intelligence (which might be true!).
I made this point myself:

Quote from: Tralfamadorian
Second, intelligence and wisdom, though there may be a correlation between the two, are not the same.

However, don't kid yourself: IQ is important and will determine your lot in life; wisdom is not the be-all end-all. I want to be a computer programmer. In order to be a programmer, one has to have above average intelligence. I am sure you have similarly aspire to take up a profession which requires a baseline level of intelligence.

As a mild aside: there seems to be a hell of a lot of wimpish, modernistic thinking going on around here.  If you're concerned so much about your physical, mental, or social wellbeing that you don't want to push the boundaries, that's fine: you probably shouldn't.  That said, don't try to make yourselves out as being somehow "better" for allowing insecurities.  I could not live with myself if I left so grand an avenue unexplored; it is in my nature to accrue experience, in whatever way.  Life is for living, not for finding excuses not to live!
You show weakness here -- you have been insulted so you insult back. So be it.

Drugs are not indicative of an adventurous spirit. Such a claim could not be further from the truth. Drugs are for those who have given up on life and choose to retreat into their own minds to hide from big bad Reality. Failing to see the beauty that is all around them, they 'augment' (read: distort) their perceptions with poisonous substances. Drugs are akin to life support: when a user isn't high, they're dead -- the only thing keeping them going is the thought of getting high again. They seek to rationalize their decadent lifestyles by advertising drugs as the path to enlightenment, but the only path drugs provide is a dead end. If you want to have an adventure, go hiking at your local state park, hit on that cute girl at the coffee shop, or try learning something you've never thought yourself capable of. Adventures are to be had wherever your comfort zone ends. The one place they are not to be had is in your own mind, where you are always safe and in control.

/troll =]

But see? Insulting someone else's lifestyle just because it differs from your own only makes for more venom and vitriol. I am not preaching, I am probing.

Here's a very small list of things which entheogens have helped me achieve (or, have suggested might be a good idea): regular (daily) meditation; no more alcohol; greater appreciation of my parents, as well as others around me; growing plants in my home; improved range of composition; spiritual insights along Sufi lines (the Way of the Heart seems to be mine); greater "connection" with my body, with others, with animals and plants, and even some objects; greater fluidity/ease of thinking; comfort in day-to-day life.  These are not temporal effects; rather, they have lasted, some of them for over two years.  It's more about the way in which one interacts with the world than about any one specific skill or set of skills; my relationship with the world has been made more whole/inclusive due to the use of these substances.
Were drugs really necessary to arrive at those conclusions?

I'll go through my 'revelations':
-- The complimentary nature of the sexes. I remember thinking this on my first acid trip. All it takes is interaction with the opposite sex to realize this.

-- The importance of family. Again, common sense stuff that just takes a little bit of self-reflection.

-- A good day is a productive day. I'll admit, smoking weed made me realize I was wasting too much time playing videogames. Probably would've realized this anyway once I got into physical fitness.

-- Telepathy. This is the only revelation I probably never would have had without drugs. Not too terribly important, though.

-- The importance of never giving up. A cliche, but seemed profound at the time. Experienced this thought as a fractal, as though every thought I had during the trip was a permutation of this idea. Really a no brainer.

-- The existence of other minds radically different from my own (but at the same time, identical). I remember blacking out for a second while thinking this on acid, not sure why. Again, common sense stuff you teach yourself as you learn and grow.

et cetera...

With the exception of telepathy, none of these things truly required drugs to realize. I admit drugs have an interesting way of 'crystallizing' thoughts, but they really just get you to think about and appreciate the obvious, something that can be achieved by mindfulness alone.

^ Stay classy, metal hall

Interzone / Re: Female fronted pop/rock
« on: November 16, 2012, 07:32:49 PM »
I've always liked this Feist song.

Interzone / Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
« on: November 15, 2012, 12:04:44 PM »
No, the "War on Drugs" is a misguided, resource wasting, corporate backed pissfuck of a policy. It is utterly idiotic to think that we can wage "war" on drugs. Fucking preposterous - you can only war in a literal sense vs living things, but even metaphorically it's stupid. Why doesn't it cover the abuse and illegal distribution of most prescription drugs? Why do some prescription drugs have side effect lists that are incredibly extensive? Why is a drug like Oxycontin legal, when it's little more than synthetic heroin? Oh right - financial backing by empty-headed bigwigs; pharmaceutical companies that make a ton of $$$ from the sale of those drugs. I'm not saying coke or heroin are good things, but neither is draining money, manpower, and time into a policy that is almost entirely ineffective (isn't it like >90% or so of illegal drugs still make it into the US? yeah, nice job DEA). Plus, this "war" was started by one of the most deplorable bastards to ever weasel into the Presidency - Richard Nixon. Just another reason to abhor it.
I never said the war on drugs was effective, just pointing out the (good) intentions behind it.

The war on drugs is largely futile, but what other choice do we have? It's a catch-22: Either we legalize drugs only to witness large swathes of society tear themselves apart as addiction rates soar, or we continue this pointless war and keep wasting untold amounts of money, countless man hours, and hundreds if not thousands of human lives fighting a beast that seemingly grows a new head every time we cut one off.

If the countries drugs come from weren't corruption-laden shit holes, then perhaps we could make some real progress. But until they clean up their act, the war on drugs is indeed a Sisyphean endeavor.   

Oxycontin isn't exactly legal. It's a schedule-II substance, meaning its use as a prescription medication is (supposed to be) very tightly controlled. Opiates/opioids have legitimate uses -- I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted my wisdom teeth out without them.

Why doesn't the DEA crack down on prescription drug abuse? I'm sure they already do, but it's lower on the priority list because terrorist cells and other entities that threaten national security are often funded with drug money from schedule-I substances. That's not to say big pharma is innocent, but in this case, I'd say they are mostly guilty of negligence; it is doubtful there is a big evil pharmaceutical conspiracy to farm cash from junkies.

It's another one of our "THIS IS GOOD AND THIS IS EVIL" binary ways of thinking in the US. It will bring little else but failure.
If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears.

To address an earlier point made by you, Traf - I will probably never touch stuff like coke or meth, same with most psychedelics. I don't think that I'd enjoy them. However, certain other drugs, like caffeine, THC, and alcohol I find use for. I strive to maintain a realism about my usage - when they do not benefit me anymore, or when I do not find enjoyment in them anymore, I will stop. Enough will be enough, when it is enough.
Fair enough. Like I said before, I do not care if you use drugs or not. A person cannot be judged through a binary right/wrong filter, as you say.

However, Dinaric Leather is on to something -- drug use is often a symptom of depression and/or other maladaptations to reality. My personal experience seems to confirm this: To most, drugs are, at best, a mindless distraction, and at worst, a crippling emotional crutch.

(Caffeine? I assumed that we were all talking about recreational drugs =P )

PS - interesting thought - do you folks consider sugar to be a drug? I saw a documentary on drugs which treated it like one; a fascinating take on it, and it backed up the claim with some pretty compelling arguments.
A common definition of drug is any substance that affects the body or mind that is not a food. However, the argument could certainly be made. Ingesting sugar does cause a small spike in dopamine levels.

Interzone / Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:26:44 PM »
The war on drugs is the war against consciousness.
I disagree, I think it's a war against a destructive lifestyle. I like Conservationist's take on the matter: Legalize drugs in California, then check up on them in 50 years to see how things panned out. Most likely result: something like the Mad Max movies.

I'm not trying to say that I have a "tolerance" to drugs or some bullshit and that they don't affect me. Buddhist monks were given LSD and they experienced barely any affect. But I don't have the luxury to be a buddhist monk...
I'm gonna have to ask for a source. Though I suppose it is possible to discipline one's mind to such a degree that drugs would not affect one's thoughts. I would not, however, construe this to mean that LSD opens up a spiritual plain of existence otherwise only accessible to ascetics.

I choose to remain in society, and I can benefit from certain aids. Usually I write for all, but in this thread I write only for those who can understand, because drugs are the most misunderstood of all (second after consciousness). Be fucking ruthless with yourself, don't give yourself any slack, see what you can See. I'm telling you that the human form isn't the ideal, there is more than this mortal coil; I am here transcendent and I don't expect you to believe me, but I do want to say that I don't fucking get all caught up in thoughts on drugs, I don't go homeless, I carry a great job, I write and I have a great life, and I'm in full fucking control of my entheogen use. I'm a shaman and I don't know anyone like me... maybe I'm the only one... I'm not spectacular, the rest of you are just stupid, that's all. I'm just fucking sane.
Are you high? Your self-righteous rambling suggests so.

 It is rare to find a person who can responsibly use drugs, but I will not deny that they exist. Maybe you're one of them. I don't care if you use drugs or not. What I do care about is when people make asinine claims like "drugs make you smarter". First of all, that's very vague. What kind of drugs? Does jenkem make you smarter? Second, intelligence and wisdom, though there may be a correlation between the two, are not the same. Drugs may afford spiritual insight (LSD), increase abstraction of thought (Marijuana), or enhance one's focus (Amphetamines) but do they increase your IQ? Certainly not.

Metal / Re: 'One Man Metal' documentary -- Xasthur comes out the closet
« on: November 14, 2012, 07:50:08 PM »
Meh, Xasthur doesnt seemd weird, he seems like he is an overgrown teenager living on welfare......
From what I gather, he never matured past the "nobody understands me" phase of adolescence.

There is nothing romantic about the solitary lifestyles of these individuals. They are not Victor Frankensteins, they are emo autists.

Interzone / Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
« on: November 14, 2012, 06:42:10 PM »
Query: If a drug's positive effects of increasing one's awareness and insight are great, and its negative effects of causing slight blind spots or tiredness or extremely minor hangover effects are very few, what the fuck is wrong with being more intelligent? If you don't think drugs can do this, then that's a separate discussion. But I don't fucking 'trip' on drugs. I don't get disorientated. I don't get 'fucked up'. I don't have trouble speaking, I don't get nervous, I don't get thoughts running through my mind, I don't lose touch with reality, I don't experience illusions of grandeur, etc. I can simply think more effectively. Period. Depending on the drug, of course. But most people aren't ready for this advanced thinking, it would contradict all the scapegoat beliefs they cling to so dearly about their self-identity and the nature of reality. Most people get 'fucked up' on drugs.
Bull fucking shit, Transcix.

I used to participate in the "who's the savviest drug user" pissing contest too, but then I grew up.

Drugs do not make you more intelligent. They provide fleeting insights that seem more profound than they really are because you are in an altered state, and then leave a residual brain fog after the high is over. Perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to be sober.

The evidence is pretty damning. (Oh but this is just prohibitionist propaganda, right? Please.)

Interzone / Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:09:48 PM »
As with most aspects of an individual, one's attitude towards drugs largely depends on the family. While Cargest and I may have been anomalies, having great parents, I'd wager over half of all drug users come from single parent or otherwise dysfunctional families.

My main motivations for drug use were peer-pressure and iconoclasm. My friends who I'd grown up with all started using drugs, so my options were: A. make new friends or B. join them. In my youthful naivety, I hopped on the bandwagon. Also, at the tender age of 15, I was searching for a identity separate from the straight-laced, clean cut, goody two-shoes persona my parents wanted me to assume. Typing this out made me realize my parents did play a role, but it's not that they didn't give me enough love and attention, but that they wanted me to be something I wasn't. That is the downside of 'traditional' parenting -- certain personality types are very resistant to the idea of being 'molded'.

I will never regret using drugs. I'm just glad I went through that phase while I was young; whenever I meet a 21 year-old who is just getting into drugs, all I can do is roll my eyes.

To the folks who still use drugs: When will enough be enough? Surely you don't plan on using drugs for the rest of your life?

Interzone / Re: The high costs of unskilled people
« on: November 12, 2012, 09:10:08 PM »
These people would be a valuable asset if the US still had manufacturing industry.

1 ... 6 [7] 8 ... 13