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 - tryl

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
General Discussion / Re: Beginning again ( relapse)
« on: January 22, 2015, 07:13:42 AM »
health related incidents in your case would be the last thing i'd be concerned about.

good luck and hope it goes easier on you.
sometimes an iboga/ibogaine trip can be quite the nightmare ahead.

Compost Pile / Re: Micro Dose journal
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:39:52 AM »
hey, king, you that same dope fiend laddie who used to post at the lycaeum ages ago by any chance?

it all depends on you.
the truth of the fact is that for some people life is better with opiates than without them. and there's nothing wrong with that per se. some enjoy it, others need it...
but to answer your question if there is "anyone out there that was like..." - yeah, me.

i was a junkie for roughly seven years, haven't been dependent or addicted for 4+ yrs now, and neither have i sworn to myself or anybody else that i'd never touch smack ever again, nor have i (not touched it).

every now and then - perhaps, on the average, twice a month (i have no golden rule or imperative of the "X times a week/month, and that's the line/limit" sort) - i'd shoot up heroin, have a bottle of poppies soaked wine, pop an oxy, or whatever.

its all a lot to do with your attitude towards the drug. and mine has certainly shifted after iboga.
it also has to do with your direction in life, your purpose, goals, dreams, aspirations - do you have any?

basiccally, everybody has to figure it out for themselves.
what works for me wouldn't necessarily for you.

and yes, there is no casual heroin habit, but there is occasional indulgence.

Staying Clean / *side note addition*
« on: February 15, 2013, 10:54:49 AM »
[meanwhile, before i post the properly formulated expose of the above in its furnished finality... trying to get this thread moving and attract some storming of ideas in the impulse to rediscover what has been lost... as i firmly believe this to be the task of our times, properly integrating the noosphere to its body..]

the awesome thing about the sign/symbol/meaning/word is that you can arbitrarily attach any sign to anything and relate it to anything else... essentially it means absolutely nothing, its Malevich's black square... nothing "is"... that's the essence of psychosis, the schizophrenic perceives things as they move, change, inter-penetrate, oscillate, collapse, fold, unfold, metamorphose..

at some point you grab on to something, call it something and begin recreating a world of aparallel evolution... that's basically how geological eras, organisms, tissues and organs, life, culture and their dimensions go on building themselves one upon the other, through the static noise of tearing flesh and sacrifice, condensing the micro-cosmos of all history and birth and totality of past in between, growing and expanding, folding and unfolding, differentiating and integrating with every other following muscular contraction of a heart beat...

so when you call something something, 'you' don't discover, but the universe of individuals, things, tendencies, presences, memories, atavisms, mechanisms and forces that constitute the compact folded totality of your functional and functioning assemblage (the brain folds ~3 m2, the intestine some 7 meters lenght..) discovers itself by repeating itself through the difference and divergence of passing from one moment to the next....

that said, what is sickness, mental illness, delusion, etc.? its basically when your 'language' does not fit the workings of things, the function of your body...
language at its inception was at first poetry and song, word-to-mouth, inside-out expression of bodily rhythms (vs. penetrating imposition of 'meaning', taken to extreme, an enslavement within, e.g. the State inside - judge/cop/legislator - as the superego in the frontal lobes...). and if you look at the ayahuasca rituals in the amazon jungles, what the 'shaman' does is he sings... he sings and chants in order to bring and coalesce your spirit back to the movements and flows of your body...

you see what you know, you create what you see... you create as you discover, and vice versa... now, have a look around, have a look at where you live, how a look at the urban infrastructure, have a look at the organization of relations and coordination of life in the geometric extensity of asphalt, concrete, steel and plastic, suggestive of a relatively immobile stability and impotent security, everything already said, done, defined and pre-discovered for you, leaving you with not much more but suffocate in Euclidean space, as fragmented and discontinous as the typewriter of alphabetic languages, snapping letter after letter as a photo camera successively juxtaposing picture after picture, one upon the other, seeing only form and appearence, solids in space...

i find what all biology is dealing with is the image of Quetzacoatl... an image intuitively and infinitely more fitting... like all entities and dieties in any belief systems, it is neither human, nor intentional, but its hypnotized in the eternal trance of its perfect movements as passing throughout and within every living thing, shedding old skin and appropriating novelty along the path of evolution...
biology doesn't seem to have acquainted itself with this transdimensional entity, as it is still too much within the molar doxa of Christianity's Death Cult, the Black Square that speaks through the voice of Others, demanding that time stops to a finite transcedental conclusion...

Staying Clean / Re: epistemological framework
« on: February 11, 2013, 11:30:23 PM »
Henri Bergson and The Method of 'Intuition'

extensively developed throughout the volumes spanning "Matter and Memory", "Time and Free Will" and "Creative Evolution", Bergson's method of an approach to 'knowing' and possibility for 'absolute knowledge', or - if perhaps at first vaguely misleading in the choice of term  - of 'intuition', of intuition as a kind of a direct, lived experience of immediate, pure perception identical to the whole of matter, at the same time plunging into a pure memory identical to the totality of the past, and as the two lines stretch towards their virtual point of convergence, going beyond experience and towards the conditions of ('real') experience.

a three-fold process as defined in the corresponding rules of its method:
  (1) creation and proper statement of problems.
  (2) discovery of genuine differences in kind within composite representations.
  (3) apprehension of real time.

before going further, an initial introduction to the central concept of "duration" needs adequate explanation.
'duration' refers to time as consciousness, as the palette of its irreducible states that make up the continuous, incomplete experience, immeasurable in its heterogeneous nature.
an adequate illustration of an example would be how different species of organisms inhabit different domains of existence, with their own metabolic rhythms and circulatory flows, sensory apparatuses and reactions of movements and muscular constrictions, etc., making up the universes of difference between the grounded photosynthesizing tree and the anxiously hyperactive rat; or the cold-blooded reptile, with its thermally attuned pace of 'time', and the suspended anaerobic spore, having brought its time/duration to a standstill patience of a possible atmosphere collapse, etc.

FIRST RULE: recognition of false problems and the constructing of true ones in creating the terms (or variables) in which they (the problems) will be raised as such.

false problems fit into either of the two categories:

                  -- nonexistent problems: problems confusing "more" for "less", or vice versa. e.g. 'nonbeing' as a 'being' which, not corresponding to our (human) expectations, is coupled with its generalized negation (non-) and its psychological motive (grasping the absence of what interests us as lack). similarly, 'disorder' as an order that does not fit the preconception of the one expected, etc., or also inversely ("less" taken for "more"), in the case when doubt about an action only apparently adds to the action, and not otherwise.

                  -- badly stated problems: cases of badly analyzed composites that arbitrarily group things that differ in kind; as in the case of 'intensity', confusing the quality of the sensation with the muscular space that corresponds to it or with the quantity of the physical force that produces it; mistaking terms juxtaposed in space with states that merge together in duration, and conceiving everything in terms of more and less, seeing nothing but differences in degree or intensity where, more profoundly, there are differences in kind. if the terms do not correspond to "natural articulations" then the problem is false in that it does not affect "the very nature of things."
another example in the idea of the possible, which appears when, instead of grasping each existent in its novelty, the whole of existence is related to a preformed element, from which everything is supposed to emerge by simple "realization".

SECOND RULE: struggle against illusion, rediscover true differences in kind as natural articulations of the real, and their point of intersection along paths converging toward the same ideal/virtual point.

here the necessity arises of introducing another core Bergsonian concept before we go further.
developed by analogy from Riemann's mathematical concept (as in 'the number of times the root of an equation occurs when there is more than one root') and so applied in Bergson's case as to elude fixed concreteness of definition (unsurprisingly, as he sought to adequately conceptualize and shed light exactly upon the fluidity of duration and continuity of movement, irreducible as such to the static fixture of the symbol; so multiplicity rather goes on to 'explain and expand itself' along the way, instead of differentiating its proper object into discrete symbols).
a multiplicity it is to be thought of as a singular substantive, outside the syntax of opposing or complementary predicate relations (as in 'one and the multiple', etc.)
like Riemann, Bergson recognizes two types of multiplicities: continuous and discrete.

differ in kind.                                                   differ in degree.
divide by changing in kind.                               divide without changing in kind.
qualitative non-numerical.                               quantitative numerical.
virtual.                                                            actual.
continuous.                                                     discontinuous.
heterogeneous.                                               homogeneous.
discrimination.                                                 differentiation.
simultaneous.                                                  successive.
fusion.                                                             juxtaposition.
organization.                                                    order.
subjective.                                                       objective.
duration.                                                          space.
memory.                                                          matter.

with things being mixed in the reality of experience, a composite or a representation must always be divided according to its natural articulations of elements that differ in kind, or in other words, according to the qualitative and quantitative tendencies which condition it along the directions of their corresponding movements (duration-contraction and matter-expansion).

Bergson stresses upon the fundamental mistake and common handicap of science, metaphysics and thought, as the tendency towards seeing differences in degree in place of differences in kind, the habit of defining beings and evaluating things on scales of intensity between extremes, in terms of "more" and "less", perfection and nothingness, being and non-being, etc.

consequently we have so mixed things up in the muddle of representations, we're unable to any longer distinguish the two pure presences of elements which condition it.

we set to establish the first line by discovering terms between which there could not be a difference in kind.

the perceptive faculty of the brain does not manufacture representations, but only complicates the relationship between received movement (excitation) and executed movement (response), establishing an interval between the two.
the object merges with a pure virtual perception, outing us at once into coinciding with the perceived object, with matter. going to conclude, there can be only difference in degree (not in kind) between the faculty of the brain and the reflex function of the core - in short, between perception of matter and matter itself.
by so assuming, we have positioned the first line of the objective/quantitative,  perception-matter, positioning the body as if a mathematical point of an instant in space.
now in order to trace the second line, we need to ask ourselves what fills up the cerebral interval and gives the body volume in space.
Bergson gives a three-fold answer - first there is affectivity (later expanded upon in more detail), followed by the recollections of memory which link the instants to each other interpolating the past into the present. and finally, there is memory in the form of contraction of matter which makes the quality appear.

[this will be one lengthy part of clarifying exactly what we're on about now...]

Staying Clean / Re: epistemological framework
« on: February 11, 2013, 05:59:32 PM »

First, I  must apologize for not reading the entire thread, but I did scan it.  My time and cognitive faculties are being reserved for acquiring that paper that pays the bills, which is also on paper. 

BUT, I found it extremely important to thank you for taking the time to write this.  I truly agree with this statement: "my belief that we need to, in the process of our re-wiring, accent on the importance of nutrition, exercise, etc. just as much (if not maybe even more) as we ought upon the need of reconceptualizing our world of understanding.  we should be aware that we 'see' what we 'know', that we to a larger degree articulate and arrange the possibilities of our perception(s) in the terms of the language in which we speak and think in. and if you start, for example, changing some of the syntactical habits in which you categorize things in the linear successions of their cause and effect, your whole sense-percept-conceptual apparatus will begin to slowly reconfigure and adjust itself." The philosophical nature of the conversation could distract me for hours, I am fascinated with this type of evaluation.  I speak 2 languages, have lived in multiple countries, studied language in psychology research labs........what you are talking about is not light stuff.  This is my favorite part of psychology actually. 

I promise to come back and read this more in depth and have some quality discourse at a later point. 

I am inclined to believe you posted this here for a reason.  As I am new to the moderator role, I am still trying to figure out what this "Staying Clean" board was, is, and can be.  So for my sake, and for others, would you be so kind as to talk a little about what has motivated you to post this? and why here?  I think that the insight you provide, how you have seen this in your own life, or operated with this in mind in your life, will be very beneficial for everyone to see. 

Much Love,


well, i took upon this as means of systematizing my recent notes in the process of sharing it for the public benefit and scrutiny...

and as i said, this holding true at least for me, any sort of 'dissociative' journey beyond the doxa of our consensus social reality is only as much of a value as its resulting integration into our everyday modus operandi.

i haven't actually even gotten to the point(s)...

a curiosity of a side turn into Henri Bergson along the path of my reading of Deleuze lately left me bit overwhelmed, head spun and deeply in awe, as Bergson managed to, with vivid clarity and the 'precision' he often keeps emphasizing the importance of, outline and describe a certain method, his so-called "method of intuition", a sort of a pragmatic approach of applied metaphysics, incredibly reminiscent of certain introspective phases and states we've come to be familiar with through use of various  tryptamines...

all in all, i believe that in the times we live in today, it is of critical importance to calibrate our terms to fact, and acquire as many 'tools' and perspectives as we could...

that's it for now, will further continue soon enough....

Staying Clean / Re: epistemological framework
« on: February 11, 2013, 01:11:51 PM »
"in the beginning was the word."  -  john 1:1
"language is a virus."  -  william s. burroughs

so let's begin by first briefly formulating the lala-land of linguistic delusion and the hyperdimensional monstrosity that dwells there...

1) identity/essentialism. the verb "to be".

in all its forms, the verb "to be" essentially indicates judgment, or a sort of a timeless label, a divine pre-order, a diagnosis or an expectation, a fixed preconception or an externalizing/objectifying of a subjective attribute (e.g., our human brain perceives such and such nuances of colors, instead of certain colors being immanent qualities in objects themselves).
the moment something is, time suddenly pulls a break, it already is and no longer becomes.

2) subject-predicatism.

our belief in 'free will' mostly stems from the fact that we say "i am", "i do", "i see the wall" (as opposed to "the wall happens to me", or in contrast with Chinese where order goes object-verb-subject, more indicative of an event than an action), etc.
it also carves a certain cause-effect linearity, one attuned with an image of a static world in which movement is 'caused' or 'made'.

3) paradox of dialectics and biting one's own teeth.

we are accustomed to think dialectically, to define things in terms of opposing or complementary relations. a certain habit to interpret. something can be different only in relation to something else from which it differs, even when the two have got absolutely nothing to do with each other.
for example, most people would think about homosexuality in terms of heterosexuality, i.e. substituting and juxtaposing man in the place of the woman, sexually or otherwise, and rarely does it occur to people at large that the two might be completely different things that cannot be so compared.
the Aristotelian either/or and its negation, where we have an idea of non-being, disorder, etc., where we would perceive non-being not as a being which is not the one we expected, but as lack, as "less"; likewise disorder not as an order which is not the 'human' order we expected, etc.

4) expression, meaning, common sense.

we are completely oblivious to the fact that before language becomes meaning, its the physiological bodily expression of sound, or the laryngeal muddle of noise which 'means' only in the context of its utilitarian convention, or otherwise 'the word is not the thing spoken of' just as Korzybski's slogan "the map is not the territory" goes.
but then, before we speak of something there is the preceding unspeakable first-order affect of the thing further expressed through the symbolic convention of approximate meaning... so a certain two-way feedback becomes apparent here, which inclines us to question the extent to which the word/meaning has taken precedence and reverse penetrated into the unspeakable domain of direct experience, and thereby conditioned the border control legislation of allowed template form, variation and nuance of emotional response and expression, as well as consider the fact and significance of our reactions to meaning ('semantic reactions') and emotional responses to ideas which often make absolutely no fucking sense at all (national pride, justice, etc.)
now, unlike all else that is a synchronous expression or extension of bodily flows (language was first music and poetry), language is as if, on the contrary, imposed upon the body and in some oblivious 'zombie epidemics' way separating itself from it. like some sort of a parasite which grew upon and from the body, and by colonizing the brain via continually establishing its neural image in a synaptic network of strengthening connections, violently enforcing its unreality upon it. 

5) spatialization of time.

we do not think time in terms of motion and movement, rather we have imbued time into space in a numerical representation of quantitative time (or dividing 1 infinitely) in a linear succession of per-second photo snaps.
but the experience of time (as determined by, e.g. the pace of metabolic rate and such), or the duration (to use Bergson's term) of lived experience presents a whole new ocean of difference altogether.

to appropriately quote Samuel Beckett in his 'exhaustion' of meaning into space:

And once again I am I will not say alone, no, that's not like me, but, how shall I say, I don't know, restored to myself, no, I never left myself, free, yes, I don't know what that means but it's the word I mean to use, free to do what, to do nothing, to know, but what, the laws of the mind perhaps, of my mind, that for example water rises in proportion as it drowns you and that you would do better, at least no worse, to obliterate texts than to blacken margins, to fill in the holes of words till all is blank and flat and the whole ghastly business looks like what is, senseless, speechless, issueless misery.

as shall be further on elaborated upon, matter, space, or the objective, is that which differs from the qualitatively subjective (irritation-constriction) in being a numerical dimension of quantitative homogeneity, or otherwise infinitely divisible and measurable in degrees of extensity.

we have been so deeply buried into space, it inevitably leaves a certain gap of neurotic craving and anxiety, of emptiness and lack, which naturally we try to fill externally.

if our idea of time as a discontinuous succession connected/connecting points, of a past budding into present and towards future, and of the past as such no longer present, were so applicable to us (or any living matter), that would suggest we have to, in each second, die and reappear anew, clean-wipe amnesic in the next moment of the second that follows.

the totality of our past, cumulative in its nature, is always conserved in its virtual entirety as the whole of memory (evolutionary, genealogical, etc., to the very actualizing present), of our heart as it remembers to beat, our body as it remembers to function, etc.

[that's gonna be much longer and laborious than i thought... under construction and to be continued, meanwhile anybody who has the inclination, feel free to add/question/discuss/suggest/reflect/...]

Staying Clean / epistemological framework
« on: February 11, 2013, 12:15:27 PM »
we're not born into nature, or anything natural.
we're born and immediately plugged and plunged into the mommy-daddy, the kindergarten and the school, the flickering screens, the suggestion of objects, meaning of language, convention of protocol, tyranny of 'common sense'; everything around is thoroughly constructed, solid, predefined and already 'discovered'. there is not a single natural thing in the infrastructure of our habitat, which itself is - naturally - reflective of the world we 'think' we live in, the one implied in our ideas, syntax, manner of speaking and terms of thinking about things.

and as everything from Schroedinger's Cat and Heisenberg's Uncertainty on has further and further shown and unraveled, we seem to be living almost entirely in the delirium of a mirage, inside the image of a world in violent conflict with the nature of how things work in the reality of fact.

when we take account of all this, addictions and dependences in the light of the general state of affairs are not only understandable reactions, but in the case of opioids often even somewhat of a 'cure', a grounding into a certain metabolic reality, disconnecting a bodily flow to connect it into the external extensions of the syringe hydraulics, streets and heroin market economy... a sort of an organizing ego principle, only defined by something more solid, actual and unconditionally simple than the habit of saying 'I'... like the tick, the bacterial spore or flatworm, a junkie's reality mode is reduced in the focus of reacting to fewer stimuli in a clearly stated manner of narrow necessity perspective...

but i digress...

anyway, what i am getting on to is my belief that we need to, in the process of our re-wiring, accent on the importance of nutrition, exercise, etc. just as much (if not maybe even more) as we ought upon the need of reconceptualizing our world of understanding.
we should be aware that we 'see' what we 'know', that we to a larger degree articulate and arrange the possibilities of our perception(s) in the terms of the language in which we speak and think in. and if you start, for example, changing some of the syntactical habits in which you categorize things in the linear successions of their cause and effect, your whole sense-percept-conceptual apparatus will begin to slowly reconfigure and adjust itself.

[to be continued in a bit...]

Eboka Preparations & Extractions / Re: Soxhlet extraction with acetone
« on: November 27, 2012, 04:32:20 PM »
Anyone here tried a Soxhlet extractor for iboga extractions? The solvent I'd use is acetone because the freebase alkaloids are soluble in it, it has a low boiling and its aprotic (which means its less likely to react with the alkaloids). I don't have a soxhlet extractor so I can't test this out yet.

i friend of mine once assembled a pretty technologially shameless improvization of a soxhlet using a bucket and a... actually wait, there it is:

General Discussion / Re: caution
« on: April 01, 2012, 08:37:18 PM »

But I dont see how you can say all ex addicts should be avoided, as like someone said earlier, some ex addicts are some of the best people you will meet.  To say all are unfit to help others is categorizing them into a thin stereotypical category, as if they were stamped out on a press and none of them are any different. What about my great aunt that had a dependence? she quit over 25 years ago. Most responsible person I knew. Would she fall into the category of ex-addicts that should absolutely be avoided?


i didn't say that.
i said ex addicts doing ibogaine should be approached with caution.
i didn't say "absolutely" anywhere.
there are many good people out there among active and ex addicts.

Idk man.. It would just help if you would explain with some proof an actual incident of some of the stuff you are stating..
It would help a lot..

i could, if you insist, but i really don't wanna recall these stories.

General Discussion / Re: caution
« on: April 01, 2012, 02:34:09 AM »
thanks for your input GD:)

General Discussion / Re: caution
« on: March 31, 2012, 08:37:08 PM »
You say you dont care enough for this and that, and that you dont need to prove yourself, etc. But that is the EXACT reason why I dont get the point of this thread at all..
Why state all this stuff if you dont care enough or dont feel like proving your statements?

And you are over generalizing addicts.. Not all addicts are the addict you were.
There is a whole spectrum to take into account, not everyone is just a clone of each other...

whatever man.

just be cautious, is all i am saying.

take everything with a grain of salt.

General Discussion / Re: caution
« on: March 31, 2012, 07:19:07 PM »
I can only see the #1 issue that puts your statements into question is when you say an addict or junkie isn't the best person to treat another addict or junkie.  That may be the case some times but that can't possibly be the case all of the time.  Just because a person has tasted every bit of hell doesn't mean they can't grasp heaven.  In fact such a statement would fundamentally defeat the purpose of healing at a deeper level, for it is the worst off that need the medicine.  And it is that sort of redemption that will make the best healing/healer.  To dwell on the unlimited is to fathom the change of seasons, to get stuck in the limited is to compromise the twinkling stars which change moment to moment.

yes, it's not the best person to treat another junkie because of oh so many reasons.
it COULD be.
it all depends.
but i'd be wary of someone with, say, 10 years of addiction behind him, who suddenly got clean and has been 'practicing' giving treatments for 2 years.

people don't change as radically and fundamentally so fast.

opiates numb the limbic system and atrophy you emotionally, thus most junkies are particularly underdeveloped emotionally.
i should know, i've been in that boat.
it takes a long time to stablize and make sound judgements, let alone carry the responsibility of taking care of someone.

maybe if my tone was different you would have understood me better, but i don't feel like pouring screens upon screens of text.

i don't care enough for dmitri to tune in on that radio, though i am sure i could make it all very awkward if i do.

i don't believe dmitri and i don't buy his crap.

if i keep an 'open mind' in your sense, i'd be torn by all them vultures out there...

General Discussion / Re: caution
« on: March 31, 2012, 06:06:30 PM »
i don't feel the need to explain myself further.

take it for what it's worth.

i was affected by the said stories and from what i've seen with my own eyes, is what made me post this in the first place, though i've known for a long time there are way too many fucked up people in that scene.

i see many of you missed my point, even.

as jaded as i might seem, it saddens me to see people exploited and fucked over that way.
because this ain't just $.
you know how vulnerable you are, addicted, dependent and tripping on potent tryptamines...
some people seem to take advantage of that, some even without realizing it, because of themselves being so messed up.
some people have no regard for the sanctity of all this.

anyway, fuggit.

i won't argue and i don't feel the need to defend myself or present evidences.
this ain't no court room.

General Discussion / Re: caution
« on: March 31, 2012, 12:49:26 PM »
tryl, have you personally met, do you personally know people that were left confused after iboga? can you share your insight?


i'm not just talking out of my ass here.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14