DMT and the Soul of Prophecy, a review...

After reading a very impressive work written by Rick Strassman titled "DMT the Spirit Molecule" I decided to follow-up on his less scientific work "DMT and the Soul of Prophecy." "DMT the Spirit Molecule" is a very well written work detailing Strassmans studies with the endogenous and biologically ubiquitous compound dymetheltryptamine (DMT). The book details much of restrictions placed on research and use of DMT. It explains the permission processes and bureaucracy that prevent scientific advancement in relation to psychoactive compounds. "DMT The Spirit Molecule" focuses mainly on measurable details of DMTs effects. Keeping with the demands of scientific rigor Strassman does not detail any subjective information or opinions. Scientifically speaking this is very honorable and confirms his adherence to scientific rigor. His DMT experiments provided reams of "unscientific" information that resulted in his later "unscientific" publication of "DMT the Soul of Prophecy".

After the DMT experiments and publications based on scientific metrics Strassman sought to expand on the subject using the "unscientific" information gathered. A move that demonstrates his genuine interest in the subject. Oddly he still attempts to attach scientific thinking in terms of 'models' to the subjective reports gathered from the experiments.

Strassman pushes heavily his monotheistic Jewish world view. He states "one of my goals for this book is to raise interest in the Hebrew bible as a spiritual reference for such a model." As meritorious as this sounds his relentless belittling of Buddhism and all "eastern religions" retracts from a proper sense of merit. He claims to have studied Zen and erroneously claims it to be representative of "eastern religious philosophies" as whole. He claims that a belief in a monotheistic creator is necessary to understand the DMT induced psychedelic experience. Simultaneously he claims the cultures who use DMT (shamanic based) are not equipped to confront the psychedelic experience. In one hand Strassman asks we interpret the visions and teachings of the Hebrew bible as actual experience with the godhead, purely based on their descriptions within the text, while in the other hand he dismisses shamanic DMT using systems themselves arbitrarily. He is willing to accept the ancient Hebrew texts (recorded from hearsay and long after the fact) at their word, but not the living shamans who are actively practicing today by their own words. This is erroneous because he refuses to take their shamanic cultures at face value and refuses to analyze their systems of belief in their own terms. A feat he is obviously capable of as he successfully analyzes his own Jewish world view by it's own terms. Pejoratively, he repeatedly implies shamanism is inferior to his own Jewish base world view. This is sadly typical arrogance common to the followers of Abrahamic traditions (including Christians and Muslims). He writes with pro-semitic biases sugar coated with new-age nebulisms and flavored with an aptness that falsely acquires an air of persuasion. I must say that Zen is no more representative of "eastern religions" than the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues is representative of Abrahamic religions. To focus exclusively on Zen is to ignore its own roots in pantheistic and polytheistic systems of Hinduism. In truth, his reasoning that a belief in a creator god is necessary aligns with the pantheism in the Hindu and many "pegan" religions, as well as Shinto and is in no way unique to his Judaism... maybe I'll have more on this later.

I'm forced to conclude that in Strassmans claimed "two decades" of "studying" Zen Buddhism he never actually learned anything about Buddhism let alone any other eastern religion. His dismissal eastern religions all together by his aversion to Zen is tantamount to dismissing all Abrahamic traditions over a disagreement with Mormonism. It is both short sighted and ignorant. Not only does his rejection of eastern religions short-sighted it is based on his assertion that meditation is all they have to offer. While meditation is the main focus of Zen practice it is not meant to be a psychedelic experience and is not sought as such contrary to his claims. Meditation can be psychedelic but is not fundamentally so.

Strassmans attempt to pin down the DMT experience with understandable "models" is a boring attempt to confine the limitless experience of reality to the limits of scientific formulae. It is also a weak attempt to validate his own cultural (mainly Jewish) world view. He claims that shamanism is not equipped to explain the DMT experience but do the practitioners of shamanism agree? I believe they do not. To say that shamanism is lacking such validity (as Judaism) is to challenge their systems of thought by claiming they're incomplete and inferior. Again, do the practitioners agree? Do they themselves see these systems of thought as incomplete or lacking in any vital way? No they do not. Strassmans' cultural biases only reflect his own inability to penetrate these systems and do not invalidate these systems themselves. That is to say, just because I myself do not understand subject A does not mean that subject A is invalid. This exposes the rigidity of his world view and the successful (monotheistic) inoculation against alternative systems of thought.

Consider a few similarities between Shinto, shamanism (including Odinic peganism). For example, animism and totemic representatives of spirits and a belief in a multitude of spirits among both the living and the nonliving. A lesson in Hindu and Germanic (Odinic) "pegan" religions provide an apt counter to monotheism. That is, among pantheistic religions "God" is the universe itself, existence itself, all things living and nonliving, material and spiritual, including the pantheon of deities, demons, and spirits, are collectively viewed as cells of the "God". This interpretation can be applied to both animistic religions and shamanisms. Unfortunately they all seem to lack a "god" figure when viewed through the bias eyes of a pure monotheist. In pantheism the sum of all spirits (and everything else) is god itself, but as we are forced to articulate particulars through the medium of language it is not possible to communicate without discerning parts of the system from the whole. That is, one cannot talk of or communicate about existence in its limitless vastness without some focus on specific parts. Concepts of 'existence', the 'universe', 'god', and 'nothing' are weak attempts to define the indefinable and set limits on the limitless. This point is the essential message of Buddhism and many corresponding philosophies. Here Zen may perhaps be the most distilled form of this idea.

If Strassman had picked Hinduism instead of Zen perhaps his desire for a creator god could have been better satisfied. His quest to find an adequate model of the DMT experience could have led him to a pantheistic model as easily as he derived his monotheistic model from Judaism. If Strassman had poured through the vast collection of Hindu texts or Buddhist texts as he seems to have done with his favored Jewish texts, he may have been equally foolish enough to interpret them as purely "true" or purely "allegorical". In the light of reading even a single Buddhist text, namely the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead', I must disagree with his premise that "eastern religions" lack a model of the psychedelic experience.

Strassmans' affinity for Jewish texts allowed him to connect quasi-historical accounts of contact with the divine to altered mental states (induced by psychedelics). While I agree with many of his conclusions, I see far too many cultural biases to accept his position as a whole. If his cultural background had been of Asian origin, he perhaps would have written a book with the subtitle of 'A New Science of Spiritual Evolution in the Tibetan Book of the Dead'. Any interpretation of the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead' grants ample room to capture an adequate model of the psychedelic experience. "Realms" of beings and existence in themselves constitute parts of the whole (cells of the godhead). The pantheistic model becomes equivalent to the monotheistic model. The actual existence of demonic "hell beings" or those beings existing as allegory or archetypes within the human psyche or as states of the mind (rage, jealousy, envy, fear, anger...) is entirely irrelevant when distinguishing between monotheisms and pantheisms. This is the meaning of the statement "if so, so what?" Repeatedly stated throughout his work and echoed in his perceived nihilism of Buddhist philosophy. The "so what?" Refers mainly to the distinction between "reality" and perception. The perception of experiencing god is indistinguishable from an actual experience of god. This is the essential message the Buddha tried to express.

He does touch on the writings of the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead" but only through the publication of "The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead." Here it seems he is willing to examine commentary on the book but not the book itself. This approach commonly results in blatant misunderstandings. Oddly and hypocritically, he is eagerly willing to do this very exercise with the Hebrew texts he references. That is, reading the actual text itself rather than a commentary written by someone who is not even a practitioner. Why is he unwilling to exerciser this very reasonable practice with eastern texts? Again this betrays his bias for his own cultural background and total failure to sincerely study "eastern" religions. Strassman says (regarding Buddhism) "if there is no self, there is no one to feel anguish and dissonance regarding the gap between inner ideals and the outside world. Therefore, one's own distress is meaningless. The best option is to deconstruct the illusory self that is responsible for that distress." This is merely a shallow nihilistic understanding of the philosophy. It is equivalent to reading the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, and seeing only horror in God's command then rejecting it before learning the sacrifice had been interrupted. Such a shortsighted rejection causes one to miss the point entirely. The teaching on dissolution of the self is not the end goal of Buddhism but a means to reconcile the dualities of self and non-self. His approach erroneously focuses on only part of the whole. Similarly any discussion on karma would be incomplete with out discussing reincarnation. Again he betrays his half hearted or even false claims to a study of "eastern religions."

Strassmans' discussion of the moral teachings in terms of "arguments among farmers" as a unique way to view spiritual nature "through social relationship and interaction." exposes his cultural biases. His claimed "two decades" of Buddhist studies should have taught him that the Talmudic "arguments" about tools between farmers have ample equivalents within the many texts of eastern religions (Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism). These arguments among farmers are not in any way whatsoever unique to Talmudic or Jewish philosophies. Any sincere study of Buddhism would have exposed him to such equivalent discussions. This adds doubt to his claim to have studied Buddhism for "two decades". Widely distributed and extremely common Buddhist texts such as the Dammapadha, do in fact contain nearly the same concerns of social relationships and interactions.

Strassman includes a small passage from "the Kabbalah of Envy" (by Nilton Bonder) about how one defines revenge and grudge. This passage he claims this is a "unique way to view our spiritual nature; that is, through social relationship and interaction." In a not so unique passage from the Dammapadha a similar sentiment about holding grudges can be found. "'He abused me, he beat me, he overpowered me, he took from me.' In those who bear these grudges hatred is not stilled." While this is not a definition of grudge it does reflect the essence of the subtitle of "the Kabbalah of Envy, transforming hatred anger and other negative emotions." Is a direct contradiction to Strassmans' uninformed claim of the uniqueness of Talmudic understanding. I do agree with Strassmans' assessment of the DMT experience as "interactive and relational, not unitive and transcendent." Here, I must point to the Hindu text of the Bhagavad gita, a mythical discussion that essentially defines "self" as relation to others. I must also mention the concept of karma as taught in Buddhism. Karma is never mentioned by Strassman, but is in fact fully dependent on interactions and relationships. The very concept of karma, which is a key pillar in Hinduism and Buddhism alike, relies entirely on the realization of the connectedness of the self and others.

Strassmans preference for the monotheistic Hebrew bible model results from a misunderstanding of both Buddhism and shamanism and his rejection of the DMT experience as "real." Shamans themselves see the DMT experience as an extension of reality. Similarly Buddhists would not reject the DMT experience as unreal but would conclude the experience as no more or less real than "reality". These are two distinct perspectives that Strassman simply does not consider. His largest flaw is the idea of inclusive verses exclusive thinking. A "this or that" dichotomy cannot easily be correct to a "this and that" duality. Again the reconciliation of dualism is a point he seems unable to include in his thinking. Saying "if reality is not real, why engage with it?" He asserts this is the Buddhist perspective without any corresponding or supporting definitions of reality. Again, the "if so, so what?" typifies the actual Buddhist perspective of "real vs unreal". This is not a negative rejection of mental states as unreal nor is it a rejection of reality as unreal. It is instead the acceptance of existence as it is regardless of considerations for what we choose to define as "real".

I find it interesting that he is willing to take up the relatively minor task of reading the Hebrew bible and conclude it is a superior (beyond adequate) DMT model. Superior that is to shamanism and "eastern religions" (though exclusively referring to Zen). I say a reading the Hebrew bible is a minor task, that is compared to the formidable task of reading the Buddhist cannon. A thorough reading of the massive collection of texts called the Buddhist cannon is nearly impossible for any single human. The sum of the Buddhist cannon is prohibitively enormous and much has not yet been translated from the Pali and Sanskrit into english or any other languages. His twenty years of Zen study is the most mild exposure to "eastern religions" that a person could possibly have.

His assertion that the Buddhist axiom "all forms are illusory" refers to a nihilistic belief in unreality shows the limitations of his understanding of Buddhism. The English words for illusion, emptiness, real, and unreal are not adequate translations from the Pali and Sanskrit. The Pali and Sanskrit vernacular are far more specific and do not have any true English equivalence. The English translations lack entirely the nuances of meaning, the diverse and/or specific concepts lost in any translations from their original language. He takes the trouble to define 'consciousness', spiritual, religion, theology, and metaphysics but never bothers to define 'reality'. Fortunately he admits "the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" may mean something quite different to someone steeped in generations of Adian culture and religion than to someone born and raised in a western milieu." I'll give him kudos for his minor point. But this shadow of translational ignorance should have taken more precedence over all of his refutations of "eastern religions".

His assertion that monotheism is an adequate model should include a comparison with polytheism as well as pantheism, but his omission of both further illuminates the biased inoculation against even the admission of such systems. In stark contrast, reading the works of Alexander Shulgin, one sees a vague openness to such belief systems that Strassman seems unable admit. In Shulgins magnificent work "TIHKAL" a brief chapter titled "places in the mind" has a wonderful discussion on this. A state Shulgin calls "Kali" is the example that best suits my point. Here he draws from the pantheon of Hindu gods to define a mental state and archetype. Unfortunately, I doubt Strassman has read "TIHKAL".

He calls the Buddhist practice of praying (to beings other than god) a cloaked "intellectual dishonesty." He continues by bashing shamanic invocations of spirits (and beings other than god). I wonder if he is aware of the Catholic tradition of praying to saints, or the Voodoo practice of praying to angels, demons, sprits... Though Catholics are monotheistic their prayer to saints is no different than shamanic prayer to spirits or Buddhist prayers to ancestors. In this dismissal of alternative prayer practices he is both insulting and ignorant.

The Abrahamic insistence and emphasis on prophecy has always seemed a desperate elaboration. Stating "the text's (Hebrew bible) power, popularity, and longevity started making sense. Its thousands of years of worldwide influence are the result of it being a product of prophecy." he seems to ignore the coercive nature of religious indoctrination. Of course a religion that recruits or converts others will be wide spread. And lets not forget that when any population systematically exterminates any other competing population, they also exterminate competing belief systems. Here then, the "worldwide influence" is merely a reflection of history and happenstance and not the merits of the beliefs themselves. Argument on "longevity" of the Hebrew texts as evidence for it's merit are nonsense. Again I must site the Hindu Vedas which predate written language itself and even the Jewish religion by thousands of years. Thus if longevity is grounds for merit, then Hunduism is many times more meritorious than Judaism. Putting longevity aside the claim that the popularity of an idea is a measure of validity is no less absurd. For centuries all humans on earth believed they were the center of the universe, but regardless how how many people believed this, it's simply not true. Strassmans' statement about the "power" of the text is utterly incomprehensible nonsense to me. I do not understand his meaning enough to interpret so I'll assume this is merely fluffy pseudo-academic page filling ink wasting gibberish. But this may be a reflection of my own ignorance, which I will happily admit.

I will not bother to comment much on his interpretations from the Hebrew bible itself. I do not preceptive any critical flaw within his analysis of the DMT experience in relation to the specific prophetic accounts he discusses. Within the single context of the Hebrew bible, Strassman is impressively informative and genuinely enlightening. As far as his work concerning DMT in relation to the Hebrew Bible, Strassman only errors in his dismissal of shamanism, and eastern religions, his assertion of Jewdaism as superior (to other belief systems), and his claim that only Judaism offers an adequate model for the DMT experience. If he had written this same book omitting the cultural chauvinism I probably would not have bothered to write this review. Instead, I would have read his book and passed it to my friends. And having learned a little more about the background and foundational works of a major world religion. Unfortunately, I found many of his statements to be both insulting and typically arrogant (typical for Abrahamic religions). As this book was not intended to be a scientific work I do not fault him for his unscientific approach. However, as Strassman is a technically skilled scientist, I would expect fewer biases and assertions.

END RANT.

Open Letter to the meddler...

Hello

First I'd like to say that I'm happy to answer all of your questions if only you'd bother to ask me directly. There is no need to go digging for dirt because you'll only get dirty. I admit it, I'm not a perfect person. I've done things that I may not choose to do today given maturity and hindsight, but I have never done anything that I regret or hide away for countenance. Secondly I'd like to add that sincerity is one of my prime virtues. However, while sincerity is important to me and I always refrain from telling lies, I do not hesitate to spin tales for the sake of humor and entrainment. Somewhere between a half and some two-thirds of what I write is purely in the realm of satire and joke. Here I must point out that it is perfectly possible to pull apart something I've written and misinterpret a joke to be truth. I believe this is the source of a misunderstanding.

We live in the age of information. How easy it is for one so hidden away to view the world through such a small window as your computer screen and begin to believe the feed. Like the age of Television, this has revolutionized much of how we see the world. Also much like television, it is a mixture of fact and fiction. Often there is more fiction than fact. Today a person who views television as pure fact is seen as having a small and impotent mind. Only a child believes everything on television. This is something that extends to the Internet. Only the most credulous and dim would read my words and conclude them to be 100% fact. The same level of credulity I've seen in too many correspondences.

The emergence of Email, Uber, Bitcoin, Twitter, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix... are all examples of how much the world is changing and how much we need to change the way we see it. Email has forever changed communication. Uber is changing the way we get around. Bitcoin is changing the way we think about money, potentially making banks obsolete. Twitter is changing the way we get news, basically making corporate media obsolete. Youtube, Hulu and Netflix are making television networks obsolete. All of this means the way we think about each other, the ways we communicate, how we get our information, and how we understand it need to evolve. To use these new systems we (you) need to adapt your thinking. The fact that you have unabashedly stalked me online is a testament to this.

Here I must add more of the personal. It seems to me that you are all too eager to jump to assumptions and express your misguided opinions. You have no Idea what you are talking about. You have no clue about my true nature. Reading a few tweets or a blog does not grant you insight into the workings of someones life. It does not expose "secrets" as anything posted on the Internet is obviously NOT a secret. As you're so fond of trolling my posts you should be wise enough to have realized they are almost entirely jokes. Perhaps it's the nature of posting in mediums like twitter that hinders your understanding. It is possible that you simply have not been able to find the entire thread and are not able to comprehend that many posts, replies and responses are jokes. Maybe this means you have no humor, or maybe I'm just not funny. But I do know that thinking everything posted on twitter is true does make for a great laugh.

This is why I'd like to believe that we've merely had a misunderstanding. I want to think that your overly emotional correspondence is the result of a telephone-game-like scrambling of the message. I'd like to believe that you are not as credulous as you sound. That you are not eagerly seeking to formulate such ridiculous conclusions, but are just uninformed. I'd like to believe that you do not want to think such things and that you are not quite as perverted as to conjure up the crazy I see in reading your words. I hope you don't want to believe yourself. Unfortunately, you seem to WANT to believe the things you do. You'd rather believe the fabulous tales you've spun for yourself than learn the more boring truths of reality.

Sadly, I'm afraid the tales you've spun reflect not only your bias delusions but expose your own inner shame and desires. Shakespeare said it best with "me thinks thou dost protest too much" implying that your protests expose your own guilt. Similarly, as Chris Hitchens said in reference to 'King Lear', "the policeman who lashes the whore has a hot need to use her for the very offense for which he applies the lash". That is, your disgusting revulsion to my (our) behavior reflects your own desire to act in such ways or your own guilt for having done so. This extends also to your bigoted concern over my race and religion. That you were so appallingly worried I may be "black" because I have a "black name" oddly implies your own desire for interracial relations. In short these rather stupid complaints comments and concerns are merely projections of YOUR inner self. 

I feel I must explain my position on drugs as you've proven so keen on making assumptions. I do NOT have any addictions. I have never had any addictions. Unlike yourself, I've spent the last decade of my life working a very successful job, thank you very much for your arrogant and insulting judgments on that. During my tenure I drank an occasional beer, smoked a joint here or there, and did other things without any effect on my career. It is perfectly possible to do something without it being a problem. A person can drink a beer without being an alcoholic, similarly, a person can smoke a joint, or eat a pill without being a "drug addict." As far as addiction itself is concerned, a person does not need drugs to be an addict. Food, sex, TV, popping bubble wrap... anything can be an addiction. It's not the act that makes an addict, it's the addicts compulsion. Sadly, We live in a hypocritical society where you can raise your children to swallow pharmaceuticals by the handful, then have the stupid arrogance to condemn anyone an "addict."

Your arrogance and credulity exposes your ignorance. To claim I have a addiction because I wrote about taking LSD on independence day is an insult to both me and actual addicts. It shows that you have zero knowledge about drugs, no understanding of addiction, no understanding of myself, and no respect for the essential dignity of other people. Your reactionary comment about drug addiction is a slippery-slope fallacy that further shows your bias and ignorance. Claiming that this one-time use of a non-addictive drug (it is a fact: "LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior.") will lead to the use of meth and "pimping", leaves me nearly speechless with sardonic laughter. This absurdity is why America has more prison inmates than all other countries combined. It's people like you (your generation), believing such blatant nonsense, who perpetuate it. Perhaps this is a form of sabotage intended to limit competition in your bullshit economy. Luckily, your antiquated views are dying as a new age of enlightenment is dawning.

Today we are seeing a wonderful revolution in understanding drugs. We are fortunate enough to live in a time when the giant black blanket term of "drugs" is being pulled back to reveal the truth. A truth that your generation has fought against from the beginning. The truth that if we are willing to call cannabis a "drug" then we should also call coffee, tea, and chocolate "drugs." The truth that "drugs" are not demons as you've been brainwashed to believe. The truth that many of these things have been used safely by "successful" people for thousands of years. The truth that in a free and civil society consenting adults should be free to get high. The truth that our culture and society is NOT fundamentally against "getting high." That alcohol, caffeine, and TV are readily acceptable and even encouraged is evidence that our culture is not opposed to "getting high." So what's so different about the other "highs"? What's the difference between drinking beer while watching football and smoking cannabis while watching cartoons? This is a question that you have obviously refused to ask. A question that perhaps is beyond your thinking as you've no doubt been thoroughly programmed to avoid it. The only difference is purely statutory and lucky for us the statutes are changing. Even the delusional belief that law (statutes) dictates ethics and morality is going extinct.

You're clearly trying to use money to manipulate us. Canceling this or that service for your own child (life-flight insurance, AAA, phone and others) is obviously a pitiful attempt at retaliation. It shows that your only sense of power comes from money. Your response of "I canceled this and that" and refusal to admit or confront and own your abusive and neglectful behavior is tantamount an admission of guilt. It also shows exactly how little power you actually have within your own life. The weakest power is manipulation and is a power used mainly by the weakest people. While I did not read the letter sent to you, I do know it's basic message. Again your refusal to confront a single point and your retaliatory response is basically a contemptible admission of your own guilt. 

As for your obsessive preoccupation with money. It's true that more money is always useful but it is not the sole measure of success. You think that money solves everything but it clearly hasn't solved your own problems. I will not argue that money is not important, but I will argue against it as the sole measure of success. If you measure success in dollars you must wake up to the fact that the world is changing. As the population increases there are fewer dollars to go around. We are slipping into a socialist country and the top 1% of the world are sucking up 98% of the wealth. So by your measure, only 1% of the world is "successful." There are some nine BILLION people on earth and you think that competition for a little slice of that remaining 2% of the pie is going to grant any success? Again your thinking shows how well hidden away you've been for the last thirty years. When you were my age, the average person owned their home, today this is almost an impossibility. When you were my age, the average person worked in a manufacturing plant, today those factories no longer exist. The measure of success has changed with the times. We are evolving into a creativity based economy while you belittle creativity itself. Today economic success is not to be found in a career working for others but in advancing the self. Your generation has been indoctrinated to believe people need to "find a good job", while my generation believes we need to create a good job.

I have to ask, with all your money (rather your husbands money), are you happy? Has any single dollar purchased you a shred of happiness? Has any dollar bought you an extra day of life? A shred of compassion? An ounce of understanding? I doubt it. Looking from the outside in, I can be equally judgmental and conclude that you are not happy. Your money hasn't bought you a single friend, let alone a fake friend and it obviously hasn't bought you a sense of humor or compassion. I'm sincerely wondering if you are happy. I must also ask, would you trade away any of your (husbands) wealth for real happiness? Perhaps here, I can illuminate the main difference between your generation and mine. We see a career as a meaningless drain of our precious little time. Simply put, we'd rather own nothing and be free to live our seventy years than work away half our lives to own meaningless stuff. We are simply not as materialistic as you so money is far less important to us.

Always remember, we are the generation that will inherit the mess you've made. We are the creators and makers, the dreamers and artists. We are not like you. We are not here to rape and take everything the world has to offer. We are not here to burn everything we can't own. We are not going to tear others down for having their own dreams. We are not going to nay-say and belittle any creative endeavors. We will take the world that you've left burned to ashes and trampled to dust. We will grow new life in it and thrive. You cannot stop us. WE are the future, YOU are the dead. We will mourn your passing, but we will embrace the freedom left in your wake. We will write history and tell the story of your failure to stop us. We will enhance the world instead of using it up, tear it down, trample it, and belittle it. Your antiquated beliefs will die with you. This change will only accelerate once your corpse has stopped weighing us down.

Rotten and corrupted with deceit, judgment, denial, and selfishness, you are a poisonous person. You are clearly seething with misery and denial. Like most people suffering from decades of misery you try to spread it around onto others. Also like most people long suffering, you are unaware that you are the source of your own misery. As we love you and care for you and we wish you well, but we are wise enough to understand that your poisons will spread into us. In other words, we refuse to allow your bitterness and misery to hinder our happiness. We have pity for your alienation but we understand that it is your choice. One day you will be left old and alone. Nobody will be there to care for you and nobody will help you. It seems this is what you want for yourself so we cannot avoid it. We will not fight against your self imposed estrangement. We love you and we have compassion for you but we will not swallow your poison.

Bitterly and mockingly but lovingly,

Darius V. the LSD addicted satanic pimp.

Mind reading technology and AI.

In the last century and for the first time in human history, we've seen the successful development of sincere and dedicated study of the brain. This has led to a wave of new technologies like forgetting pills, false memory pills, learning pills, thought scanning "brain decoder" computers, mind controlled drones and prosthetics (robotic limbs), and mind controlled games, brain to brain communication, implanting memories and more.

The human brain has always been a very difficult subject to study.  Caught between ethics and practicality it has remained a relative black box for most of human existence. Until very recently, practically all understanding of the brain came from the study of defects and damage. The comparison between a "normal" brain and an "abnormal" brain has been our only tool in linking the fleshy grey matter to the internal mental world. This has led us to answer only a few basic questions about our minds.

Sometime in the last century the surgical and mechanical approach to understanding the mind reached a plateau. We'd learned the separate organs of the brain. The visual cortex, the amygdala and other with some basic information about their function. It wasn't until the enlightening introduction of psychedelic compounds like Mescaline did we begin to learn the nuts and bolts of the brain. The compound commonly called LSD has probably taught us more about the functions of the mind than any single thing. Today we are seeing an approach of a wave in understanding. We are in the process of changing the stigma against psychedelic compounds and we are simultaneously developing better mechanical understanding of the brain.

I believe the combination of research with psychedelic compounds, brain scanning technologies, and unlimited data storage and processing will bring our understanding of the mind under the pressure of moore's law. This itself will most likely be a step in the evolution of artificial intelligence. As seen in the awful movie "Chappie", a brain scanning program that can copy a mind, is within the realm of imagination. But this will be possible in reality. Currently we're gaining in the entertainment roots of advancement and within the more practical departments of medicine and military. An article published on gizmag.com "BBC develops mind-controlled TV" is one example of the push for entrtainment to develop mind reading technologies. The successful use of brain machine interface has been used in medicine to create prosthetics. DARPA or course has worked to developing mind reading technologies for decades.

Right now the parts are not connected. The technology to read a mind is not connected to the technologies to implant memories, is not connected to the technology to control learning. However, just as cameras, audio recorders, libraries, phones, computers, notebooks, calendars, and clocks were all separate items. We've now combined and consolidated all these things into one. Eventually the technology to implant memories will be combined with the technology to forget, and combined with the technology to accelerate learning. They will be combined with the technology to read minds which will also be combined with the technology to control minds.

As scary as this is, it's not a future to fear. Imagine the possibilities of combining accelerated learning with mind reading. I could plug into the mind of Stephen Hawking and download his thoughts. A counselor could plug into the mind of a patient and pin point traumas, then write a superscription for a forgetting pill, or a "corrective memory" implant designed to grant a memory to reconcile the trauma. I could plug into the mind of a blind person to show them color though my mind and they could show me things a world I can't currently imagine.

This could be an ultimate enlightenment for civilization. instant communication, instant knowledge, and Instant understanding. There will come many moral and ethical implications. Given the ability to implant memories and remove them, could we adopt a new justice system? Could we reinvent our ideas of crime and punishment?  Reinvent ourselves and solve some major human flaws? Could we pass on information so abstract and complex that cannot be put into words that expresses deep reasons that can only be understood by perspective?

Better than any phony polygraph, using brain scanning technology we can determe if you're a liar. We could truly find the guilty. Perhaps a violent offender is implanted with the memory of his victim. Perhaps the violent memory is erased from victim and aggressor and the cycles of human traumas are broken. The evil that could be done is equally impressive. A new wave of treatments could compensate for a wide range of mental health issues. We have the basic ability to eternally control the emotions of others (site DARPA article). Implanting entire lives into the minds of Manchurian agents then controlling them to make horrific decisions. Spies, and torture on a level only dreamed of by the powerful are now within possibilities.

Another branch of brain technologies that we should pay close attention to is basic mind simulation. As computers get better, the simulation programs will advance as well. This mean that our current level of mind simulation could limitlessly advance beyond our own capacities. Here is a point about AI that we all need to consider. Not only that we could create something beyond our control, but that we could create something so far beyond our control it's incomprehensible.

We have the benefit of hindsight to recognize the massive impact a simple video game like 'Pong' has had on human life. Pong's impact extends beyond video games. It snowballed the momentum that eventually led us to processors allowing us to create entire movies digitally and communicate face to face instantly with people across the globe. The effect of technology dissipating from it's original use into other functions combined with moore's law has taken us from IBMs $2,000,000 (mid-1950s) IBM 700/7000 series computers to the $100 wireless Android tablet. 

This wave of brain technologies is much more important to human society than we currently realize. Like the invention of the internet it will transform human life in ways that we do not currently comprehend. Trials with the current level of these technologies have proven that it is theoretically possible to implant memories, accelerate learning, read other peoples thoughts, control machines and potentially control other people with only our minds.

Ultimately one day mind reading technologies will be combined with autonomous AI machines. Future humans will be living around robots who can read their minds. Think about that.







End rant.

Why I want to hang with Louis Theroux

     In the world of documentaries there occasionally comes a character like no other. Louis Theroux is a man who seems to fit in regardless of how much he doesn't quite fit in. Traveling in search of a great story, he finds them by pushing your buttons. He comes on as harmless but he's armed with sincere questions and a polite manner. Beneath his friendly exterior there seems to be a hidden comedian. He seeks out the unusual and the bizarre, as he calls it "the dark side of human nature." Spending his "Weird weekends" with some of the most odd people humanity has to offer. Louis Theroux exposes some of the stranger aspects of modern life. His adventures take him to places that most people would avoid. From the lawless city of Johannesburg to the back yard parties of swingers, to the hobbit holes of survivalist.

   He has a talent for exposing some of the more complex issues. When he interviews a couple who are life long meth addicts, they reveal an aspect of drug use that remains taboo and unmentionable. This couple does not want to stop using and view their use as a pleasure which enhances their lives, a perspective that is entirely missing from nearly all other drug related documentaries.

    Touching on a spectrum of complex issues that rightly deserve attention. His episode about the Westboro Baptist Church aptly named "The Most Hated Family in America", is probably his most compassionate work I've seen yet. He effectively shows the suffering and delusion the church members live under. Ironically he turns the 'Most Hated Family in America' into a subject of pity. A follow up episode further illuminates the families alienation. Interviewing former members, he adds to the sense of misfortune among this broken family.

   Sometimes he seems to spin a story that might misrepresent his subjects. For example, his interviews with the survivalists in northern Idaho basically make them out as white supremacists. He even goes so far as to interview the head of the Aryan Nation church. Theroux has an obvious fascination with Nazism and white supremacists. However, he does provide a fair perspective by allowing these freaks to speak for themselves.

    He travels to Africa and questions the ethics of big game hunting. Filming in private reserves where wealthy Americans pay to kill African animals, Theroux introduces us to the illusory paradox of conservation by commercial hunting. In this episode a reserve owners explains that "they (African animals) are going to go extinct if they don't bring in any money... if it's not for hunting, there will be no species left in Africa." An apt counter to the ignorance of animal rights propaganda.

  His strongest impact on me came from the documentary filmed in San Quentin called "Behind Bars". According to Wikipedia, "it was ranked the tenth most watched program of the decade on BBC Two." Netting some 5.8 million views, it touches on relationships among prisoners themselves and between the guards and the inmates.

  Many of his documentaries are of a less serious nature but a very serious one is "Law and Disorder in Johannesburg." Where in South Africa mercenary police forces are the only law enforcement authorities. Sadly he only touches on the stupidity of rampant homelessness among empty and abandoned buildings. An issue itself which deserves more attention.

 After seeing nearly all of his BBC published works, I am convinced Louis Theroux would be a fun guy to hang around. Perhaps I'll introduce him into my own eclectic world books, linguistics, rocks, guns, gardening and entheogens.

To Louis, If you ever read this, always stick with your gut feeling but remember what the Douglas Adams' 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' says about Earth. It's "Mostly Harmless." Have you ever thought about doing something on Mormonism? Please keep up the good work! Oh, and thanks for 'Going Clear.'






END rant.

The Satanic Verses, a review, sort of.

It is often said that the most influential books are the most essential. Books that have changed history or broken the mold with revolutionary style, topics or ideas. Books that spawned new literary genres, riots, political revolutions, and cultural revelations. Within my lifetime there have been very few books that fit these demands. Now, I must warn that I will be deliberately offensive and crude in composing my views. If you are of a similar mind to myself in thinking that no topic is taboo and that all opinions are equally absurd, I hope you see my observations and allow me to challenge the beliefs I find an affront to human decency. That being said, I also hope you see the shred of sardonic humor with which I pepper my writing.

As a fan of the late Christopher Hitchens I've worked avidly to fill the gaps in my understanding of his references. Being the literary giant he is, and will always remain, I doubt I will ever complete a reading of all works Hitchens is reputed to have digested. Not only will I probably not make my way through the library of Hitchens. I will probably never come close. However, reading all but a handful of his publications I have made my own list for essential reading. The majority fall into the category of "most influential books" but not all are inspired by Hitchens. It is directly through my exposure to Christopher Hitchens that I became aware of the author Salman Rushdie. Hitchens explains the fate of Rushdie in his book "God is Not Great." A fate woven by the publication of the book "The Satanic Versus." Recently I took up the challenge of reading cover to cover this formidable text. Formidable  because of it's five hundred plus pages, dreary language and uninteresting 'islamocentric' story.

"The Satanic Versus" obviously takes themes from a wide range of well known works beyond the Koran. The basic transformation of the characters is directly influenced by Franz Kafka's "Metamorphosis". The writing style as long series short stories is reminiscent of the "Arabian Nights". The endless repetition of quasi-philosophical axioms is found in many other influential stories such as Frank Herbert's "Dune". These influences are blended with a satirical writing style that is almost directly stolen from Joseph Heller's "Catch-22." The book seems to be little more than a chimera of more influential works geared toward people descended from Arabic cultures. This view is perhaps his intent. "Satanic Versus" is an attempt to combine the rich culture of western literary works with the depressing lack of literary culture among Muslims. He only succeeds in exposing the dangers of belief and fundamentalism. I have no doubt that above all others, Islamic fundamentalists are the readers Rushdie had in mind when writing the book. It only justifies the western perception of Islam as childish ignorant and primitive by fueling reactionary fundamentalists.

I read it wondering 'what kind of book could possibly drive so many people to riot?' I thought it would at least be interesting given the riots, fatwa, death threats and media coverage it inspired. I finished Salman Rushdies "The Satanic Versus" and thought 'Holy crap monkey! The only way this crappy book could have possibly sold a single copy is with hype.' This has got to be the most boring story I've read since the forced consumption of Shakespeare in public school. Expecting a grand work worthy of its received hype I found it to be entirely unimpressive. I struggled my way though the book stopping frequently to rest my mind on things less mind numbing. I found Inspiration to continue only in the screaming faces of Islamic zealots calling for Rushdies head. Their ugly faces alone solidified my commitment to finish this book.

Ironically, the true insults within the book lay in the way Rushdie portrays the English. Snobbish, egotistical, self-centered, and materialistic are the qualities of the English characters. The Irony of this is a long tradition of English self-deprecation which would never object to such a portrayal. Yet as far as I am aware, not a single Englishman joined rioters or burned the book. This fact serves to magnify the civility of western culture and better contrasts it to the stagnant bronze age culture of the Koran. The basic principle of free speech expressed by Rushdie and embraced by western culture is also a magnifying principle. It highlights the differences between the civilized and the uncivilized. The refusal of any western government to comply with Muslim requests to ban the book further magnifies the divide between civilization and barbarism.  

Sadly, it does nothing to warrant respect for the 'offended'. In fact this book is so lame I have to think that those who claim offense must be mentally disabled idiots with no ability to comprehend written language in the first place. Call me insensitive but the idea that anyone let alone an entire "religion" (as if religions are entities themselves) could be offended by this books is laughable. This subverts any level of respect its followers may deserve. Ironically those who claimed offense never bothered to read it before burning. Simply put, to claim offense by something unread is the epitome of ignorance. It's nothing but contemptible and seems to justify the bias perception of Muslims as barbarians. That a religion could be offended is itself a concept worthy of contempt, but adding to the contempt, its followers voluntarily remain ignorant to the actual work itself. Offense by this childish fable is reason enough to dismiss such a religion as anything worthy of respect. Furthermore the fact that adherents of this faith are willing to call for blood without ever reading the words that inspired the fatwa confirms the western perception of Islam as merely primitive ignorance. The lesson is these people are more than stupid, they are violent barbarians who threaten the basic human right of free speech and the basis of human civilization. Not only does the bloodlust of this "faith" display a gross disrespect for Gods creation itself, it is the apex of inhumanity and barbarism that only begs for disrespect, derision, scorn, and pity. Like monkeys throwing their own shit, they bring disrespect upon themselves.

As misplaced as the Muslim rage is, I do not feel that their offense is entirely unwarranted. If the offended were to claim as I do, insult to the intellect, I would have to agree. The offense is not toward Muhammad or his ignorant, violent and hypocritical followers. Unless they are so stupid and primitive as to find anger in mere words on a paper they have never read, which they seem to be more than eager to do. The offense is not in the text itself but in the delusion and hype of being a work worthy of our time. If the riots were not a call to justice for offending Islam, but for the vast amount of human time wasted and devoted to reading this book, I could sympathize. I wish I could unread this book and charge Rushdie for the offense of stealing a bit of my life. I only recommend this book if you have already read all of the many great works that humanity has produced, perhaps "Atlas Shrugged", "War and Peace", "Dune", "It", "Shogun", "Walden", the complete works of Carl Sagan or if you are immortal and can devote an insane amount of time reading any boring garbage.

I must remind myself that his book acted as a spotlight illuminating the stupidity and radical insanity of Muhammad's followers. Here I must thank Rushdie for shining light on this topic by the peaceful means of literature rather than the preferred method of combining martyrdom and mass murder.

End Rant.

LSD and 4th of July without fireworks.

The 4th of July is an American holiday that fills the air with explosions smoke and the smell of BBQ. It is the celebration of American independence from British Imperialism. A celebration that terrifies pets and wild animals with fireworks. Unlike all the celebrations of war however, I totally fucking love the 4th of July!

Maybe I'm getting old so I'm less enthralled with the holiday or maybe I've discovered something more appealing than booze and bombs. This years celebration was very different from my tradition of drinking beer and blowing up the empty bottles with illegally modified fireworks. Or my alternative tradition of drunkenly riding my bike around the city while sipping on a bottle of tequila and eventually crashing a party or BBQ. This year I stayed home with my girlfriend and we ate LSD.

All day the city echoed the pops and whistles of fireworks and we sipped ciders left over from the night before. Each of us ate one and a half acid laced sugar cubes around Seven P.M. and put on a stupid movie to wait until the drug began to show its effects. About half way into the movie the acid crept in. I felt it grip my spine. My jaws began to tighten and my face contorted into the classic Cheshire cat grin. The shivers rolled around my body making me giggle and moan with its energy. Sitting on the couch I curled into the fetal position and hugged my pillow. We began to writhe and stretch as the LSD opened our minds to the tension in our bodies. Excitement and blissful joy energized us priming us for all that could happen. A loud series of bangs shot through the house from the fireworks in the street. The abrupt absurdity of it broke our tension and we laughed hysterically.

We finished the movie and stepped outside to explore the vines and trees in our back yard. We admired the fractal spirals in the sunflowers and ate some josta berries. We could only be outside for a few minutes because the sulfur smell from the fireworks was intolerable. I decided music is what we needed so I played the essential Pink Floyds' "Dark Side of the Moon" followed by Tychos' "Sunrise Projector" as we looked through a massive coffee table picture book of cosmic photographs. We stared at the nebulae and galaxies and planetary images taken by the Hubble Telescope for nearly an hour. The nebulae waved and sparkled in one trippy image after another. The Ant nebula expanded forever and the Eagle Nebula reached out to swallow us.

Inspired by the Technicolor worms and Amish blankets surrounding us we broke out the art supplies. But I could not focus on anything long enough to record this inspiration with color. I retreated to the bathroom and laughed at the absurdity of my face in the mirror. Horror and wonder rippled across my face and I laughed and laughed at the sight of it all. My eyes like saucers I made goofy expressions to see the shape of my face contort into the ugliest of masks.

This was one of the few LSD adventures that did not result in a grand awakening. It did however relieve the tension and stress we've been feeling since I quit my soul sucking job a month before. This trip was not filled with visions and revelations. Instead it was one filled with joy and relief and reaffirmed our faith in each other. It was a journey that let us abandon our apprehensions and embrace each other in the realization that everything is temporary. It reminded us that all we really have is the time we spend on each other. It expanded our love for one another. It smothered us in forgiveness and understanding. I imbued us with the understanding that everything really is going to be OK.

Robotic armageddon and survivalism

Robotic Armageddon - we all know the scenario from science fiction stories like 'Terminator', 'I Robot', '2001 Space Odyssey', the 2012 version of 'Total Recall', 'The Matrix', ... Artificial intelligence is created and is used to enslave people or decides by it's own volition to kill all humans, or otherwise turns against us. Like a bomb, a robots function and purpose is clear and definitive. Their very existence defines their purpose. As a bomb is defined by it's single function, the failure of it to perform as it is designed redefines its existence. An unexploded or defused bomb is simply not a bomb, A bomb is it's explosion and the explosion is the bomb. Until the first decade of the 22nd century robotic warfare was purely science fiction. Then beginning sometime during the American invasion of the middle east, robotic artificial intelligence was unleashed as war machines against humanity. These robots called drones are constructed more like planes, gliders and remote controlled helicopters, and not humanoid in physical construction. They are still the beginning stages of full robotic warfare. Essentially, the threat from robots is one found only in the realm of monsters. An inhuman, unfeeling, unsympathetic, unreasonable, nonnegotiable, machine. A machine who's sole purpose is the destruction of mankind. Robots cannot be bought, they cannot be bribed, bargained with, negotiated with, or compromised with. However, they can be reprogrammed or destroyed. The vulnerabilities to such technologies are both obvious and daunting. Sabotage, Physical destruction, Hacking, robots under opposition control, and E.M.P 'weapons'  which are incorrectly called "weapons", because weapons are used against humans and not machines. And an E.M.P. is completely harmless to humans and only affects electronic systems. I will only discuss the first two options for defense against robots.

How to kill a robot - Most machines use components of more basic designs. Gears, pulleys, hydraulics, leavers, cams, batteries, capacitors, motors, software, software processors, sensory systems, communication systems... any of these things can malfunction under the wrong conditions. Failures in any systems can occur because of fluctuations in temperature, humidity, voltage, external pressures, internal pressures, lubrication issues, programming errors, oxidation of components, mechanical wear and erosion...

continue later...