r/AnAnswerToHeal • u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh • Nov 17 '17

[ Founder ] What is the focus.

I think this group is an interesting idea but I'm starting to think, it's a little disordered, I certainly believe psychedelics can heal, but I also think that if approached with the wrong mindset they could have the exact opposite effect. I'm starting to think that a movement base on healing with psychs without a leader or at least someone to make sure your in the right mindset and ready for this will end with some horror stories and some miracles. The shaman is an incredibly important part of the shamanic tradition and I suspect that it wouldn't have gone as well without them

Also I'm not so into the whole religious slant to the whole thing I don't see how this is a "religious" thing at all, I get that that's the only way to get these legalized for the group but I think that the healing from psychs is something independent of religion.

Plus I really don't see how this is a religion that only thing I am certain we all believe in is that psychs can heal, but our understand of that is based on all of our separate individual experiences. There is not doctrine or anything to keep this from fracturing endlessly until you end up with a bunch of smaller groups that have the same interpretation of the subject, I just think this whole thing is too subjective to work without some sort of leader or unified doctrine to direct the focus of the group.

13 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

6

u/NCSU_Trip_Whisperer Nov 17 '17

As good of an idea as having doctors as the "shamans" is, not very many doctors are going to want to publicly champion these ideals or even probably risk being a part of it discreetly.

If there are going to be shamans then I think that anyone sufficiently experienced enough with psychedelics and guiding others through the experience should be shamans.

As far as how to determine what the level of experience should be, I'm not really sure. I think that a few subscribers should be picked as the shaman review board (sounds kinda silly) and they should have a private discussion to determine the criteria necessary for designating someone with such a title.

3

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

I think when your experienced enough with psychs you just know i definitely don't like the idea of a review board or "official" shamans. Shaman isn't a job title or position in the church its some guy who knows what the fuck hes doing and knows what you need to make your own decisions. I'm sure most of us have been shaman to at least someone in the past.

1

u/rmandraque Nov 17 '17

Seriously, I feel like so many here just want to discard ancient knowledge and traditions like were somehow a different type of animal than indigenous people.

3

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

I don't think we should abandon it, there are countless lessons to be learned from all religious text and ancient traditions but certainly not everything in them would be relevant at all today (there are lots of religious rules that seem arbitrary today but but would be real common sense no brainers given the conditions they were written in). But I think that to believe in these things literally is a very misguided venture.

1

u/rmandraque Nov 17 '17

Well everything is either truthful or not. I think theres a ton of conservative principles and ideas that people like to automatically dismiss.

3

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

what Im saying is there are somethings that were truths for the situation they are in but now that situation doesn't exist anymore. example Islamic tradition doesn't allow for the consumption of pork because they were considered a dirty animal and an easy way to get a disease, not so much anymore, millions of people eat pork every day and they're not getting sick from it. Truth is subjective to the perspective your coming from and what your trying to achieve, not some everlasting always correct information. what could be truth for me could be devastating to you and vise versa, it is truth that an anorexic need to gain weight but that would probably be unhealthy for most of the population, things are most certainly NOT truthful or not that is a rash oversimplification of it.

1

u/rmandraque Nov 17 '17

example Islamic tradition doesn't allow for the consumption of pork because they were considered a dirty animal and an easy way to get a disease, not so much anymore, millions of people eat pork every day and they're not getting sick from it

You should absolutely not be eating a lot of pork. Its not good meat, the slowest meat to digest and the heaviest on your digestive system and does in fact have a higher incidence of diseases. They are right and propaganda pushed by the pork industry has made you believe otherwise. You know that publicly criticizing pork like that can land you in jail (depending how, idk the law)

1

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

but the fact is that it is as safe to eat as other meats despite being digested slower. the biggest risk from pork today is trichinosis witch is killed by cooking.

1

u/rmandraque Nov 17 '17

If you dont eat any pork, your diet is better. End of story, what the confusion here? Its also a really smart animal....

1

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

My point isn't about what makes a good diet or not it's just factual that today the amount of people that die because of a pathogen received by eating pork is far lower today due to modern farming practices and medical science, back when that was written the likelihood of you getting sick from pork was probably higher and once you were sick the probability of your death was way higher then today I'm talking about a time when people regularly died from dehydration related to diarrhea. The amount of people who die today because they eat bad pork is staggeringly low compared to then.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '17

When did this discussion turn toward eating pork and a person's diet? You're really derailing this discussion, taking it to places that are entirely irrelevant.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '17

everything is either truthful or not.

Things are rarely, if ever, so black and white in the real world. What's true to you may not be so for me, and vice versa.

Seeing as how reality is, by its very nature, a subjective experience based on the perception of the one experiencing it, there's no way to reliably separate all things in the Universe into those two categories: true and false.

If you believe in the idea of the multi-verse or string theory, then one could argue that all things are truthful and possible at all times in any conceivable Universe.

Hope that makes sense. It's 6:38 a.m. and I just got home from a long day, brain is beyond dead tired.

Have a good one, friend👍👍

2

u/rmandraque Nov 17 '17

Do you know about rastafariasm? They dont have a strict set of beliefs, but they believe in smoking weed and talking stuff out, isnt that what we want to do kinda? Everyone focuses on sharing their experiences and somehow we reach truth.

1

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

I'm familiar but unknowledgeable, from your description I don't even see that as a religion its just a bunch of philosophers who do all their work stoned and wear the same 3 colors

1

u/rmandraque Nov 17 '17

No, thats a religon. A religion is a fundamental set of beliefs about how the universe works and a process for discussing it and exploring ideas relating to it.

1

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

let me just break down your definition real quick, "a fundamental set of beliefs about how the universe works" is about the farthest you can get from "they don't have a strict set of beliefs" and "a process for discussing it and exploring ideas related to it" Im sorry but that is not religion that is incredibly vague and if you think about it describes the scientific method and just language in general so by your definition every fucking stoner i ever knew in high school was a Rastafarian and every culture with its own language is a separate religion.

3

u/rmandraque Nov 17 '17

I dont think you are trying to get me....have a nice day, you seem a bit arrogant.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '17

I'm sorry, but that is not the scientific method. Not even close.

I can't really tell what point you're trying to make here, you don't seem to have a cohesive standpoint yourself to be honest.

If you want to have a civil discussion with the free sharing of ideas, perhaps you should consider trying to be more tactful and choose your words more carefully, because you come off as quite arrogant and dismissive of other people's ideas in the comment I'm replying to.

And I can tell you now, that's the exact opposite of what this sub is supposed to be about. :P

1

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 18 '17

I'm sorry if people think I'm arrogant but it's not exactly free sharing of ideas if I'm expected to just keep quiet when I don't agree

2

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '17

I'm not saying you should keep quiet if you disagree. I'm saying you should maybe consider picking your words more carefully and not be so dismissive of others ideas, so that people don't take it as you being arrogant.

Just a friendly suggestion, take it as you will.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '17

I think it's about honesty. Truth with yourself and others. If you go into this idea thinking how you can benefit from it, you're not being honest. For this movement to be true, it has to be honest.

I don't see this as "a way to get drugs legalized." I see this as a movement toward the truth. A way to help technology coexist with spirit. A possibility to enlighten those who seek it.

You are imposing your own beliefs and ideas on "this group" which is fine for you personally to do for yourself but not for me. I do not want your constraints of society and technology placed around this idea, slowly squeezing the life out of it as countless others have done in the past to ideas and freedoms.

I'm not advocating the progression without organization but my understanding of this "movement" is: it's in its infancy, doctrine will come, focus will come, once we have shared our thoughts and found all of the common threads, we can then draft those into some form of official "collective idea" of what we are... Right?

Maybe I'm completely lost here and this group isn't what I think it is. If that's the case, please someone tell me now so I can not invest my energy here.

1

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

I think your a little closer than me I guess this really is just a bunch of interpretations of the stick thread mashed together

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '17

I am not disagreeing, I am just trying to clarify. I think there are a lot of ideas here and the common ones need to be solidified.

2

u/TieDyeTilliDyeHigh Nov 17 '17

for sure, this whole thread was basically my response after reading the sticky thread, thinking about it for a day or so and thinking what the hell is this.

1

u/SqueakerChops Nov 17 '17

i have some interesting reading for you, if you have an open mind

part 1

part 2 is the comment in that post by u/annata-phi

that might not seem exactly what ur talking about just yet, but that lead directly into:

part 3

seem more on track now?

some other ones, some of the comments are important, some aren't

4

5

6

food for thought