Comments on: The Noetic Connection: Synesthesia, Psychedelics, and Language http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/ evolving language in the psychedelic sphere Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:04:57 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: The Noetic Connection: Synesthesia, Psychedelics, and Language « jonesthought http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-126 The Noetic Connection: Synesthesia, Psychedelics, and Language « jonesthought Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:06:04 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-126 [...] June 18, 2009 in awareness, consciousness, enchanted, esoteric, honesty, indoctrination, inebriated, intimacy, language, psychology http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-langua... [...] [...] June 18, 2009 in awareness, consciousness, enchanted, esoteric, honesty, indoctrination, inebriated, intimacy, language, psychology http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-langua... [...]

]]> By: Mesila http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-117 Mesila Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:41:50 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-117 Wow, I am going to have to read this again, when I can pay closer attention. I love neologisms especially in this sort of field. I'd like to see a list of those you've coined, or which you've seen in this field, as I am curious! I am a compulsive neologiser who manages to weed out the ones that either aren't that necessary being that they're synonyms to extant words already, or just too gimmicky or jargonish, but sometimes, I manage to concoct one that NEEDS to exist, since it's the best word for that which it's the name of. The most often used of these is "xenodimensional". I finally wanted an all-inclusive term for "wildlife" in the other dimensional configurations...which sometimes intersect with the world we live in, where the "solid-state" biological sentients are. The Xenodimensions are numerous--some don't have any overlap, others crunch together and we see them flattened. Choronzon, the author and aethyr-dweller that I sort of "shacked-up" with in my skull, is my classic example of a xenodimensional. Recently, the "meta-avatar" of him animated himself, and got in a conversation about psychedelics that I was not able to turn away. Two of my most exalted and adored things are: the abyss and Choronzon (and Chaos, and Control...and the ways these along with its opposite. And another Agent, one I call "Pharmakopois" a xenodimensional who is devoted to the divine plants, and helps the human beings find the rare flora. Yesterday, I started using "signium", plural "signia', to refer to the idea of a "magickal tool' that is not really a true "tool". A signium is a glyph, or illustration, which reflects an abstraction of any sort--a kind of energy, or a set of events, any set or grouping a person is working with or studying, the signium usually some sort of geometric shape, but not always. Signia can be crystals or stones, or items of sentimental value. Signia are reminders, but they are passive. The mind using them is active. A "tool"on the other hand, is an object that's actively used to make something, or to change its attributes or appearance, or move it somewhere else, and so on. Tools are pretty much indispensible, but signia are not really needed in magick or mysticism. They're just props. They can be circumvented around, but they're showy, dramatic, and are easy to glue one's focus to. The most common signia are sigils, but not all signia are sigils, since a sigil is usually scrambled in some way, while the use of a signium might require that it be very obviously connected to what is signified by it. It is even possible for a signium and the thing it stands for to be the same object, but it doesn't seem to happen all that much. Anything else on 'psychedelic language' and I would like to see it. Thank you. Wow, I am going to have to read this again, when I can pay closer attention. I love neologisms especially in this sort of field. I’d like to see a list of those you’ve coined, or which you’ve seen in this field, as I am curious!

I am a compulsive neologiser who manages to weed out the ones that either aren’t that necessary being that they’re synonyms to extant words already, or just too gimmicky or jargonish, but sometimes, I manage to concoct one that NEEDS to exist, since it’s the best word for that which it’s the name of.

The most often used of these is “xenodimensional”. I finally wanted an all-inclusive term for “wildlife” in the other dimensional configurations…which sometimes intersect with the world we live in, where the “solid-state” biological sentients are.

The Xenodimensions are numerous–some don’t have any overlap, others crunch together and we see them flattened.

Choronzon, the author and aethyr-dweller that I sort of “shacked-up” with in my skull, is my classic example of a xenodimensional. Recently, the “meta-avatar” of him animated himself, and got in a conversation about psychedelics that I was not able to turn away.

Two of my most exalted and adored things are: the abyss and Choronzon (and Chaos, and Control…and the ways these along with its opposite. And another Agent, one I call “Pharmakopois” a xenodimensional who is devoted to the divine plants, and helps the human beings find the rare flora.

Yesterday, I started using “signium”, plural “signia’, to refer to the idea of a “magickal tool’ that is not really a true “tool”. A signium is a glyph, or illustration, which reflects an abstraction of any sort–a kind of energy, or a set of events, any set or grouping a person is working with or studying, the signium usually some sort of geometric shape, but not always. Signia can be crystals or stones, or items of sentimental value. Signia are reminders, but they are passive. The mind using them is active.

A “tool”on the other hand, is an object that’s actively used to make something, or to change its attributes or appearance, or move it somewhere else, and so on. Tools are pretty much indispensible, but signia are not really needed in magick or mysticism. They’re just props. They can be circumvented around, but they’re showy, dramatic, and are easy to glue one’s focus to.

The most common signia are sigils, but not all signia are sigils, since a sigil is usually scrambled in some way, while the use of a signium might require that it be very obviously connected to what is signified by it.

It is even possible for a signium and the thing it stands for to be the same object, but it doesn’t seem to happen all that much.

Anything else on ‘psychedelic language’ and I would like to see it.

Thank you.

]]> By: mazerunner http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-112 mazerunner Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:52:16 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-112 Bettina, Thanks for the correction. Leary's book is called "Starseed: A Psy Phy Comet Tale." transmitted from Folsom Prison by Timothy Leary. Ken Carey's book is "The Starseed Transmission, as you said. Leary's book was much earlier--1973. Bettina,

Thanks for the correction. Leary’s book is called “Starseed: A Psy Phy Comet Tale.” transmitted from Folsom Prison by Timothy Leary. Ken Carey’s book is “The Starseed Transmission, as you said. Leary’s book was much earlier–1973.

]]> By: Bettina Giancana-Kane http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-111 Bettina Giancana-Kane Sun, 10 Aug 2008 05:23:35 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-111 The Starseed Transmissions were not written by Leary during his imprisonment, as referenced on this site,but rather, they were written by Ken Carey (see Amazon). The Starseed Transmissions were not written by Leary during his imprisonment, as referenced on this site,but rather, they were written by Ken Carey (see Amazon).

]]> By: mazerunner http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-38 mazerunner Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:40:58 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-38 Are you by any chance Roger? Are you by any chance Roger?

]]> By: Melina http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-27 Melina Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:17:38 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-27 very interesting. i'm adding in RSS Reader very interesting. i’m adding in RSS Reader

]]> By: mazerunner http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-11 mazerunner Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:24:55 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-11 mb--this is good stuff, grist for the mill. There's a deeper point here, and it has to do with my quibble with the pruning of 1st person reports by clinical researchers. I think we need thousands of reports from all quarters about each drug--to even begin to map the lineaments of the experience. Science tends to looks for the repeats, the stable features, the repeatable events. My own belief is that we need to know the features everyone sees--and also the wholly unique individual experiences. And that we need to learn how to "read" reports as one reads literature--for layers of meaning. Simple analogy: You could send a dozen people for a day on their own to Paris and get reports that might duplicate on certain high points, but vary widely in other ways. How could you describe a big cultural richness like Paris on a one-day tourist visa? It's also very much I think not only set and setting but what one's attention is on--what aspects of the trip, and then there's personality type. If you think the Jungian four functions out of which Meyer-Briggs was constructed--well, some are perceivers and some are judgers; some are more oriented to the senses than others. I have experienced acid with strong visuals and where visual or sensory aspects were backgrounded to, say, the noetic. It all gets pretty intertwingled and the categories with which we are having this discussion can be easily shredded. Good discussion, thanks. mb–this is good stuff, grist for the mill. There’s a deeper point here, and it has to do with my quibble with the pruning of 1st person reports by clinical researchers. I think we need thousands of reports from all quarters about each drug–to even begin to map the lineaments of the experience. Science tends to looks for the repeats, the stable features, the repeatable events. My own belief is that we need to know the features everyone sees–and also the wholly unique individual experiences. And that we need to learn how to “read” reports as one reads literature–for layers of meaning. Simple analogy: You could send a dozen people for a day on their own to Paris and get reports that might duplicate on certain high points, but vary widely in other ways. How could you describe a big cultural richness like Paris on a one-day tourist visa? It’s also very much I think not only set and setting but what one’s attention is on–what aspects of the trip, and then there’s personality type. If you think the Jungian four functions out of which Meyer-Briggs was constructed–well, some are perceivers and some are judgers; some are more oriented to the senses than others. I have experienced acid with strong visuals and where visual or sensory aspects were backgrounded to, say, the noetic. It all gets pretty intertwingled and the categories with which we are having this discussion can be easily shredded. Good discussion, thanks.

]]> By: mb http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-8 mb Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:28:46 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-8 I was being a little sloppy with the "usually". More precisely, I would say that some psychedelics, like LSD and DOM, produce relatively minimal sensory alterations and rarely produce synesthesia yet have powerful noetic effects. Researchers from the first era of psychedelic science often commented on how rarely participants reported synesthesia after LSD. So the LSD-biased clinical research experience says psychedelics synesthesia is rare. But if we average across all the experiences of indigenous peoples with various highly visual psychedelics, they may well be common. But, basically, I suspect the noetic aspects are fundamental to psychedelics in a way that sensory changes are not. But maybe I'm wrong. I'll leave further discussion of science –and how to improve it– for another conversation. You may enjoy this Tom Wolfe quote, which echoes your point: The White Smocks liked to put it into words, like hallucination and dissociative phenomena. They could understand the visual skyrockets. Give them a good case of an ashtray turning into a Venus flytrap or eyelid movies of crystal cathedrals, and they could groove on that, Klüver, op cit., p. 43n. That was swell. But don't you see?--the visual stuff was just the decor with LSD. In fact, you might go through the whole experience without any true hallucination. The whole thing was . . . the experience . . . this certain indescribable feeling . . . The experience of the barrier between the subjective and the objective, the personal and the impersonal, the I and the not-I disappearing . . . that feeling! I was being a little sloppy with the “usually”. More precisely, I would say that some psychedelics, like LSD and DOM, produce relatively minimal sensory alterations and rarely produce synesthesia yet have powerful noetic effects. Researchers from the first era of psychedelic science often commented on how rarely participants reported synesthesia after LSD. So the LSD-biased clinical research experience says psychedelics synesthesia is rare. But if we average across all the experiences of indigenous peoples with various highly visual psychedelics, they may well be common. But, basically, I suspect the noetic aspects are fundamental to psychedelics in a way that sensory changes are not. But maybe I’m wrong.
I’ll leave further discussion of science –and how to improve it– for another conversation. You may enjoy this Tom Wolfe quote, which echoes your point:
The White Smocks liked to put it into words, like hallucination and dissociative phenomena. They could understand the visual skyrockets. Give them a good case of an ashtray turning into a Venus flytrap or eyelid movies of crystal cathedrals, and they could groove on that, Klüver, op cit., p. 43n. That was swell. But don’t you see?–the visual stuff was just the decor with LSD. In fact, you might go through the whole experience without any true hallucination. The whole thing was . . . the experience . . . this certain indescribable feeling . . . The experience of the barrier between the subjective and the objective, the personal and the impersonal, the I and the not-I disappearing . . . that feeling!

]]> By: Diana Slattery http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-7 Diana Slattery Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:38:35 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-7 Points well taken. I tried to keep specific in my critique with the examples from Cytowic and Kluver, not make entirely sweeping generalities about all neuroscientists. It's a general methodological problem, however, with the masked problem of the scientist appropriating the right to edit, interpret, label, and judge the value of any person's report--narrative--of direct experience. Question: on what are you basing your statement, "the noesis of psychedelic experience usually happens without synesthesia:? Points well taken. I tried to keep specific in my critique with the examples from Cytowic and Kluver, not make entirely sweeping generalities about all neuroscientists. It’s a general methodological problem, however, with the masked problem of the scientist appropriating the right to edit, interpret, label, and judge the value of any person’s report–narrative–of direct experience. Question: on what are you basing your statement, “the noesis of psychedelic experience usually happens without synesthesia:?

]]> By: mb http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-6 mb Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:27:26 +0000 http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/the-noetic-connection-synesthesia-psychedelics-and-language/#comment-6 Interesting article. However, I think some aspects of the representation of science rely on an outdated image of science. I don't think there's a working cognitive neuroscientist today who would regard synesthesia as abnormal or pathological. Also, many neuroscientists do not regard the senses as fully separate; the field of 'multisensory integration' is a large one with research showing early and rich interactions between senses. I can’t deny that some scientists are ambivalent or worse about first person reports, but, in general, my experience is that they are taken seriously but are decomposed. Much of what people consider dismissal of the first person is actually an attempt to break first person experience into components. This is what scientists do with everything they regard as real. And while I'm defending conventional science, my memory of reading Kluver is that I was impressed by his mixture of self-experimentation and careful attention to the experience of others. I recall that he was interested in, and mentions, the full complexity of psychedelics. But he started (wisely I think) with the simple stuff and thus was able to make modest advances. He looked forward to better scientific approaches to understanding these fascinating drugs. Maybe I’m misremembering or maybe he deserves reevaluation. Concerning your more central points, I wonder if this linking of synesthesia to noesis may be generalizing too much from psychedelic synesthesia to other forms, especially since the noesis of psychedelic experience usually happens without synesthesia. Interesting article. However, I think some aspects of the representation of science rely on an outdated image of science. I don’t think there’s a working cognitive neuroscientist today who would regard synesthesia as abnormal or pathological. Also, many neuroscientists do not regard the senses as fully separate; the field of ‘multisensory integration’ is a large one with research showing early and rich interactions between senses.
I can’t deny that some scientists are ambivalent or worse about first person reports, but, in general, my experience is that they are taken seriously but are decomposed. Much of what people consider dismissal of the first person is actually an attempt to break first person experience into components. This is what scientists do with everything they regard as real. And while I’m defending conventional science, my memory of reading Kluver is that I was impressed by his mixture of self-experimentation and careful attention to the experience of others. I recall that he was interested in, and mentions, the full complexity of psychedelics. But he started (wisely I think) with the simple stuff and thus was able to make modest advances. He looked forward to better scientific approaches to understanding these fascinating drugs. Maybe I’m misremembering or maybe he deserves reevaluation.
Concerning your more central points, I wonder if this linking of synesthesia to noesis may be generalizing too much from psychedelic synesthesia to other forms, especially since the noesis of psychedelic experience usually happens without synesthesia.

]]>