On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:55:59 -0400, "Jake Blues" <5htp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
><collection60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:1179852884.042473.118730@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> LSD sucks anyhow.
>>
>> Try mushrooms.
>>
>
>I have. They're okay, certainly easier to obtain. But they're not as good
as
>LSD.
They're different to LSD. To say of two diffferent substances that one
is "not as good" as the other is rediculous without specifying, what
it's not as good at. Acid is great, but so are mushrooms, and
personally speaking, I've had much more profound experiences using
mushrooms than on acid (even on pretty high doses of acid - not that I
can give you the dose in ug, but I've had strong trips on 3 doses from
a particular batch, then taken 4 times that amount in a session -
never got ego loss, except when on a fairl low dose of LSD and I
smoked some rather strong hash). A high dose of mushrooms, and a bit
of cannabis produces ego loss for me very reliably.
There are many other differences in effect (at least for me) - I find
mushrooms often to provide a unifying experience, while LSD provides a
shattering one. Both useful in their way, but different. And the
difference is too complex to describe as (A is better than B).
>They're a "dirty" hallucinogen.
You mean that they're from an organic source and so there are other
things there? Well, that might cause problems for some people, who are
adversely affected by the other proteins and other things in
mushrooms, but for me it hasn't been a problem, I get very little body
load from mushrooms, only ever have very slight nausea (and that's
only when I don't take an anti-nausea pill first).
> LSD.25 is a clean drug. We had a
>discussion some time ago about all the additional chemicals in mushrooms
>besides psilocybin/psilocin. All these chemicals can affect the
experience
>at least marginally, and you don't really know which ones you're getting,
or
>in what ratio.
Well I've recently taken to using 4-aco-dmt fumerate instead of
mushrooms. It's from a reputable supplier, so I don't think there's
much in the way of adulterants. My dose is usually 50mg oral. It
produces a trip that for me, is almost indistinguishable from the
mushroom experience (which Maria Sabina said of the synthetic
psilocybin she was given by Leary).
>Lsd.25 is LSD.25, period. I'm not saying you always get pure,
>uncut LSD. Hell, I'm sure most of the time it's cut or adulterated with
some
>impurity or other, especially blotter acid.
With what? I can't think of many things that are easier to make than
LSD (and hence worth cutting it with), and that would also fit on
blotter, and that would also not be immediately obvious to anyone
taking the stuff.
>But good, clean, pure LSD.25
>beats the shrooms any day, IMO.
Personal taste I guess.
>Also, I think your brain handles acid better
>than it handles shrooms, in the sense that the effects are very ---
concise,
>for lack of a better word; very mathematical, geometric, just as reality
is.
Is reality like that? What a peculiar thing to assume. Your brain
presents or interprets reality in a certain way. On psychedelics, it
presents or interprets it in a different way. Seeing things in a
different way is good (hence using more than one kind of psychedelic
is good), but to make the assumption that on acid you see the world as
it really is, while in other states of consciousness you don't don't,
assumes far too much about the nature of reality and of cognition.
>Even alternatives such as non-Euclidian geometry is still geometry.
? You can get that insight using a maths text book, or by drawing
triangles on a footballl.
> I'm
>guessing I've taken mushrooms perhaps a dozen times over the years, the
last
>time being five years ago, and I've usually felt sorta ****ed-up and
spacey
>for a few days afterwards, and as often as not, I've gotten a cold. At
the
>end of an acid trip, I've just felt that all the equations have balanced
out
>again, and just went on with life.
After a high dose mushroom trip I generally feel vey centred and
serene for a time afterwards - how long depends on the cir***stances.
It's best when I have a few days free afterwards, going to work the
next day doesn't help. With LSD it's pretty similar. Those trips when
I have ego loss produce the best and most long lasting aftereffects.
>Mushrooms can be fun, but they're not
>*logical* like LSD is.
Yes, I get a feeling that there's something more "logical" in someway
about LSD. That doesn't make it superior to shrooms, makes it
different. Saying mushrooms can be fun.... well, so can acid.
Personally I use fairly high doses of mushrooms, and don't do them
very often because I find trypamine experiences very strenuous
mentally. If you asked me to describe my best mushroom trips, fun
would be there, but spritual, profound, healing, would be higher on
the list.
> I can easily see how that physicist, himself a
>regular user of acid, won the Nobel prize.
That's a slightly bizarre statement. Most people who use acid don't
win nobel prizes. Most physicists who take acid don't win nobel
prizes. Are you saying that if a physicist uses acid he's more likely
to win a nobel prize? Or are you saying it wouldn't hurt his chances?
Either way, I'm a great fan of evidence - which in this case is hard
to come by. When there's no decent evidence (e.g. about LSD use being
linked to creative / scientific success, about how this differs from
mushroom use), I don't think you can just pick the conclusion that
sup****ts your own beliefs - you have to say, "I don't know".
>Acid aided/augmented his logical
>thinking. If he used mushrooms regularly like that, --- well, who knows
>where he'd be,
Without the right research, no one knows where he'd be.
> but I'm entirely sure he couldn't have accomplished whatever
>it was that got him the Nobel prize.
except you perhaps.
odd that your preference for the "logical" lsd seems to have led you
to settle on an opinion that sup****ts your view, but which seems to
lack any evidence (as you yourself said, "who knows where he'd be".
> His name escapes me, but he testified
>at the O.J Simpson trial.
Good grief. I'm not sure who you're talking about, but the fact that
he had anything to do with that trial makes me wonder.... like the
death of Diana (as discussed on this newgroup), apart from for the
individuals closely involved (the dead, their killers (if any in the
latter case), it was merely a celebrity / media phenomenon. Following,
never mind taking part in that affair would be like reading Heat
magazine - a serious waste of part of your life.
pj
|
