If you google that question most of what you get are explanations of why God allows so much suffering and proofs of God’s existence. For locations you get only: “everywhere” or in a “different dimension” or “hidden” or “inside you”; I have not found anything more specific. This is unfortunate because knowing where God is could reveal much about what God is. We can learn where he is by examining how he got there, a subject about which we do have some knowledge.
Our species has a powerful need to find reasons, to know how and why. Many conditions and events have no obvious explanation and are attributed, by some people, to unseen, mysterious powers. In antiquity, before the dawn of science, such happenings were very pervasive. To explain them various spirits with magical abilities were imagined. These spirits were mostly capricious, fearful and demanding. Often icon surrogates of them were made. Rituals, aided by the placebo effect, were invented to influence, cajole or placate them.
As societies became larger and more complex spirits morphed into gods; rituals morphed into worship and religions were born. Usually one god was imagined to be more powerful and was more venerated or feared than the others. For the Abramic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- the supreme god became God. The remaining gods were eventually abolished, to be replaced, in Christianity and Islam, by angels.
The important takeaway is this: all of these spirits, gods, God and angels are not existent entities; they live only in human minds; they are mere figments of imagination, which, unlike reality, is unconstrained.
In this context it is worth noting that throughout “A History of God” (Random House, 1993)* -- the excellent seminal book by Karen Armstrong, who is not an atheist -- gods and God, as well as spirits, are treated as concepts not as actual beings.
These days, even though almost all of what once bewildered our ancestors is now explained or at least explainable, most people still believe there is a God of some kind. However, when they are questioned for details, one finds a plethora of God characteristics and versions, from the creator-supervisor of the universe and everything in it (who is demanding, loving, caring and trustworthy or demanding, jealous, vengeful and capricious or both); to a mere initiator of the universe; to an unknowable supernatural “something”. In short, God is whatever its believers-cum-creators concoct.
So, God, gods, angels, etc exist in human minds, no where else, especially not in any genes. They, and deeds attributed to them, are imagination supported by (usually willful) ignorance, nothing more.
* You can find a free PDF file by googling “a history of god pdf”
I just assumed that you had a copy of this book that included the citation - and that you might be interested in offering that citation. It's your claim, I've asked you for evidence, you refuse to supply it. Next thing you'll say it is illegal to access that study, or the study has been made top secret, or some other line of bullshit. Yes, that word does roll of my tongue quite nicely, especially when talking to the likes of you.
I do own the book. I have an entire library of books on psychedelics (no I'm not obsessed). Would you like to borrow it? I mean, there's other sources. The greatest example, in my opinion, is Carl Jung's notion of the "collective unconscious." To my mind, he's the only depth psychologist that really studied these religious motifs, and it's prevalent in all of his work such as his concept of the archetype which is undeniably universal, as well as one of the earliest books on UFOs, even, but he analyzed it not as the UFOs are ordinarily conceived, but as an object within the psyche. He saw it as a symbolism of our immaturity as a species. He titled it "Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky".
Jung also obsessed over mandalas, which if you look into, are very fractal in their design. Not to mention the lotus patterns in Egyptian mythology and Buddhism.
There's also a video documentary based on Strassman's book that you could find on YouTube and Netflix that interviews a lot of his volunteers and people involved with ongoing research of psychedelics. It's the same title as his book, I believe.
Ok, you own the book. Now, why is this taking several exchanges just to get you to open that book and provide the information on the study that he cites?
I'm sorry, I really thought you simply wanted a reference to a citation, not a specific citation. Okay, there's actually a brief mention in the description of "Amazon.com." Unfortunately, there's only audio previews of the book, usually you'll find previews of scanned pages, but there isn't any (I know you're going to use this against me). If you give me your address in a PM, I'd be happy to send you the book. I've already read it about four times. I don't think I really need to read it a 5th time.
What you basically find is these volunteers are intravenously given a dose in a laboratory setting, and each of them are interviewed, and there are overlapping themes in their description of each of their experiences, i.e. geometrical racing walls and entities, immense light, otherworldly visions and alien-type encounters, etc. There's a lot of speculation and extrapolations that Strassman speaks about, from why we encounter similar motifs to how N,N-DMT is being elaborated in the brain, specifically the pineal gland, .etc.
However, as I mentioned, the best example is Carl Jung's notion of the "collective unconscious." There are other examples that explore the very same universal themes, Aldous Huxley wrote about it in his book entitled "Perennial Philosophy" and Richard M. Bucke also discusses it at length in his book "Cosmic Consciousness."
The book doesn't have a bibliography?
Aw! Awesome! Found the .pdf of the book.
The chapter entitled "Under the Influence" is a good place to start.
The volunteers, in your suggested chapter, report a wide variety of phenomenon - the only significantly common experience was a loss of sense of time. Furthermore, nothing in the chapter indicates that the volunteers were from different cultures - they seem to all be volunteers in the same study, as though they are all from the same campus.
Sorry, but the magical 'universal experience' of which you speak is not supported by the source material you have cited.
Strassman also notes threshold as I'm always at great pains to emphasize. That the volunteers who endured the larger doses were the ones that had the full-blown psychedelic experience while he also notes that the lower doses did not elicit psychedelic effects, but more subtle psychological effects.
Initially, in the very first paragraph, he writes, "Describing what it's like in the DMT realms is about as easy as giving words to scaling a mountain peak, sexual orgasm, undersea diving, and other nonverbal but breathtakingly profound experiences."
Ralph Metzner used the metaphor of a group of people who've never been to say, France, for instance. Let's say, at a threshold dose that elicits psychedelic effects to a dose range that elicits a full-blown psychedelic experience, you'll find yourself somewhere in France, and perhaps in the full-blown experience, you'll find yourself somewhere near the Eiffel Tower. If you closely question this group of people, you can tell that what they're describing is, more or less, some area of France.
Another metaphor or archetype rather that Terence used in describing the spectrum of DMT effects relative to dose range was the archetype of the "circus," again, depending on dose range, you might find yourself at a vacant parking lot with burnt out cigarette butts and discarded detritus rolling in the wind because everyone has gone, while if you took a more potent dose, you'll find yourself in the middle of the action with the clowns scurrying about, and the sideshow taking place, etc. And he used that example long before Strassman wrote that book, and yet you find over and over this archetype being expressed.
You know, the word "fractal," to my surprise, was never mentioned in the book. I've sort of become convinced through my own use of psychedelics and my own research of this phenomenon that a lot of these "geometric patterns" are fractal in their design. I mean, it's simply perhaps that most people don't know what a "fractal" is or have never even heard the word "fractal," so obviously, the next best word of choice would either be "kaleidoscopic" or "mandalic" or "geometric pattern." I mean, I don't really hold this book to any really high-esteem, because I have my own opinions about it, but I only mention it because it is out there, and the research was done in a very scientific fashion. But I'll quote from the book one more time...
"Subjects saw imaginable and unimaginable things. The least complex were kaleidoscopic geometric patterns, which sometimes partook of "Mayan," "Islamic," or "Aztec" qualities. For example, "beautiful, colorful pink cobwebs; an elongation of light," "tremendously intricate tiny geometric colours, like being one inch from a color television." Many used the term "four-dimensional" or "beyond dimensionality" to describe the effect."
I mean, if you want to still sit there and tell me that there's not overlapping themes here, then that's fine. I still maintain that the evidence points otherwise.
Another thing I'd like to add is because it was done in a "scientific fashion," Strassman had no choice but to use the intravenous method of injection because he wanted to keep track and record very specific amounts used on the volunteers, but contrary to what one person claims in the book, most people know that DMT is far more powerful when it is smoked, and smoking between 50mg to 70mg, usually, if you can manage not to cough, guarantees this "full-blown" psychedelic experience that Strassman attempted to achieve with his volunteers at higher doses.
Once again, you make a straight forward claim and suggest it is backed by a scientific study. No such study exists to back up your claim, so you just try to obfuscate by throwing out all sorts of other claims. I will not play your game - it is obvious your claims are all just bullshit.
I never said that. I said that Strassman performed his research in a "scientific fashion," and I made sure to surround quotes there as for it not to be misinterpreted that I'm claiming that this is all scientific and thoroughly proven. The fact of the matter is, there is no scientific study towards what I'm claiming (That there's parallels between eastern philosophy and M-Theory). However, I do believe that if there were to be any scientific study, the results wouldn't be too far from what's actually going on.
Another thing I love about psychedelics is that it's one thing to read about them, it's quite another thing to take them. I mean, if anyone truly thinks that these observations I'm making are "bullshit," then the psychedelics are there to speak for themselves, that is, if one is truly curious about them and is willing to take them in a shamanic and hopefully legal and catious fashion.
I'd like to add you're welcome to think of these ideas whatever you like, but I want to make it clear that I'm not "playing a game." I'm not sure I could say the same for you since this was your own projection and you seem quick to dismiss things without thoroughly investigating in it, and I don't mean taking psychedelics themselves (although, this would most likely be orders of magnitude beneficial to your understanding of them), but really researching the matter.
As for the motifs, I sincerely believe that there is universal motifs, and even if that research isn't convincing enough for you, I believe when and if these things are studied more in the future, we will continue to find these overlapping themes.
Ok, so there is no scientific study to back up what you are claiming - that is all I was asking in the first place. It's always like this with you - start out with a bold claim, try to back it up without ever giving a citation, try to avoid the issue by making all sorts of other wild claims, ultimately say nothing.
You are a waste of time - but I take the time so that this pattern is clearly demonstrated for others to see.
I said that there was no scientific studies for what I was claiming about the parallels between something like the "Brahman" of Hinduism and the "11-dimensional hyperspace" of M-Theory.
However, I wouldn't dismiss Strassman's findings as unscientific, I was just pointing out that it's not a direct study to what I'm saying about eastern philosophy and M-Theory. You're really quick to twist my words. I really have to assume that this is a game for you, and that this is definitely a waste of time for myself. This is a pattern that is obviously inherent within you, and I'm sure we don't have to demonstrate it to others, because they seem quite aware of your game.
I do believe that his findings is evidence that there is without a doubt thematic imagery and archetypal motifs that are universal within the people who have these type of experiences. However, with that being said, we cannot say to what specifically they're pointing to, scientifically, because at this point, neuroscience is pretty much a shot in the dark at describing consciousness itself.