This reminds me of a very good South Park Episode. The Episode was about the world, and how there was no religion, just a bunch of atheists, and instead of people killing each other over which religion was right or wrong, they killed each other over what atheists should call themselves, the point being that no matter what people will find gratuitous reasons to kill each other and stir up trouble, so i would have to say the world really wouldn't be that much different without religion.
Hahaha I actually saw this one last night! The interview is incredible, as I can't believe the interviewer would actually force Leary to stay on the show. He should have received a swift punch in the face for grabbing him like that. I think Leary acted pretty well considering the circumstance that he was in. I think some of what it was, is was acting funny. Like at the beginning "Im under arrest!" Hahaha that had me cracking up. But he at this time in his life he was definitely a little bit more far out. I really do think that he got involved with other drugs other than Psychedelics.
Hahaha "used Psilocybin" is about as loose as a statement as you can get my friend. The man advocated Psychedelics to his death, but none as dearly as the sacred Magic Mushroom. But yes you are correct he was also a very avid user of Cannabis as well. He was a great man, and a very extraordinary thinker, I really encourage you to look him up on Youtube, there are hours upon hours of his lectures and speeches and I learn something new on every one I watch!
Yes I would have to say that there is. I remember an interview of Morgan Freeman and when asked about Black History month, he declared that he doesn't want one, and it doesn't do anything to further the eradication of racism. Because think about it, if black history month,or the recognition of the differences and idiosyncrasies of any different race for that matter, is an attempt to be politically correct and sensitive, than it is a failure, because you are recognizing and vocalizing the differences of us human beings. Like wise, if you are on purposely going out of your way to try to avoid offending someone, because of their race (or anything else for that matter) you are treating them differently because of that thing, which is in a sense racism.
Haha nothing to debate dude! I even would agree with you that I myself prefer Aldous Huxley over Leary. I am not familiar with Ram Dass though. Do you use Psychedelics? You don't have to answer, I just always get delighted when I meet a fellow traveler, because you're right, most people do not want to use LSD, or any Psychedelic substance for that matter, which is very sad and discouraging.
Well you are breaking it down an awful a lot.
I agree that government and economy are intrinsic to each other, but we aren't debating how interconnected which one or the other is. Im just trying to keep it simple, and answer the question. Capitalism is not a form of government (Although as stated by you, it plays an extremely important role in determining the government).
Its all good man, simple misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to lecture you or anything, it is very clear that you know what you are talking, I was just trying to give my opinion. I am not very informed on Leary at all, I have done very minimal reading, and have only seen a couple of interviews.
Im not trying to debate you. I think he was an extremely intelligent man. I think he had a lot of good insights. Feel free to disagree.
Im not trying to lecture you. Once again I am simply stating my opinion.
Yes LSD is only a tool that most people don't know how to use, but never the less, I'm sure you can agree it is an extremely powerful tool.
Capitalism is definitely NOT a form of government, as it is an economic system of how to handle the private sector, as the first argument states. It certainly can have a powerful influence on the government, but no capitalism is not a form of government.
Well technically if you think about it, Do we really KNOW anything in Science? How many things in science can we DEFINITIVELY prove? I mean we can theorize and speculate, but can we can't definitively prove it. We can adhere to a set of theory's that seems the most likely and probably, but that is about it.
Same thing goes for Religion. You can't PROVE it. You are just believing on faith something to be true.
I will agree it is EXTREMELY annoying when your standard run of the mill teenager, goes out and buys a Che Guevara T Shirt (or anything with his face on it for that matter), without knowing a shred of information on the man himself, except that he was a "rebel". I do admit, I am the proud owner of a Che Guevara shirt, but I have done extensive research on his life, read his fantastic biography, and have formed my own opinions free of biases from the political left or right.
While I will agree that at times Leary was lost in his own head, I will have to disagree with your notion that he was an idiot. He was an extremely intelligent man, not to mention a Ph.D of Psychology. He definitely had a more unique perspective on issues, then that of a normal person (That is, someone who has never used LSD before).
Rock on man! Timothy Leary was great, although I myself personally prefer Terence McKenna. I think LSD wasn't the only drug that Leary got involved with, because after watching several of his interviews, he was a little cooky nearing the end of is life.
Probably either Che Guevara. If every communist had the discipline and selflessness that Che Guevara had, Communism would undoubtedly be able to work.
Or, He isn't really a historical figure, but definitely someone who has influenced my thinking in major ways, Terence McKenna .
http://imagecache6.allposters.
http://www.newagethinkers.com/wp-
I would usually say yes, but for the sake of argument Ill say No.
I guess it really depends. You should have been a little bit more specific in your question.
Dictatorship by default is not necessarily a bad thing.
There is a HUGE difference between a DICTATOR and a TYRANT.
The citizens of a nation can live prosperously under a dictator, if he has has the people's and nation's interest at heart.
On the other hand a TYRANT usually only cares about himself, and rules with an Iron Fist.
If the people are living good under a Dictator why rebel? To rebel just because he is a dictator doesn't make sense.
Absolutely agree.
How can we as humans (even more specifically western civilization) claim to be an advanced species, when we haven't even learned to get along with each other? We let stupid and trivial differences such as race,religion, sexual preference, and political affiliation, dictate how we feel towards each other? This isn't advanced thinking. This is sh*t for brained, primal instinct kind of thinking. We are still stuck in "Survival of The Fittest" mindset, when we live in a time and age, where it doesn't have to be that way anymore. Instead of being patient and working out the kinks of the complications that arise, we immediately look to slander and tear down each other, just for the sake of preserving our own egotistical pride and ideologies, because God forbid we get along with someone who thinks differently than us. Just look at western culture,Capitalism and Consumerism. We are glorifying and advocating systems and paradigms that place value on the material possessions one has. The one with the most toys wins. If you aren't a CEO or a business owner, or a surgeon, you don't have value. It preaches go to college, get a degree, and blah blah blah,and than you can be a somebody. We promote consumer junkie psychology.
We the people don't even create culture anymore. Culture creates us. Popular culture is no longer a reflection of what is popular in culture. The Media TELLS culture what is popular. What is this doing? Its diminishing our collective creativity. We are disempowered and maintained by electronic media. How much conscious freedom do we really have?
We promote destructive behavior. The media glorifies destructive habits, such as drinking, and smoking tobacco, but when it comes to harmless, beneficial Psychedelic drugs, we are willing to lock someone up for consuming a mushroom that grows naturally in the wild. Think about that for a second. Something that grows on the planet is ILLEGAL. It doesn't make any sense. If we aren't free to experiment with our consciousness and expand it, than what freedom do we really have? One of the very foundations of being human is that we are conscious, and the only one that we are allowed to have, is the one that is created by an electronic media. We aren't glorifying free thinkers, and those who challenge the current social order. We lock them up and demonize them.What does this show about western society (which dictates most of which that goes on in the world)?? We are society that is reclusive and resistant to change. We don't even want to think about alternatives because, we are satisfied with being greedy and selfish. This all come back to Primitive "Survival of the Fittest" psychology. And until people realize that it is going to take some serious sacrifice on our parts (meaning those who are blessed to be in more fortunate situations), we can not move step into the next phase of human psychological evolution. Until we dissolve are petty boundaries that keep us from loving each other, we will continue to kill each other to satisfy our egotistical desires.
Well if you search up on Google, I am sure that you could find much better knowledge than I could ever offer you, but I guess another important thing to note would be, tensions about Slavery (and the size of the government), could largely be accredited to the western land acquisitions we received through expansion. Basically after we had acquired all those states, the issue in Congress, was wether these states should be able to have legalized slavery. To my knowledge, Congress said no, and basically the Southern and newly acquired states were pissed off because the government (that was increasing in size) said the newly acquired states could not have slaves. I don't know if that really helps you, but it is some general knowledge that could aid you in your search, or give you some ideas.
Well, Adam Smith isn't advocating smaller government. He is looking at both sides neutrally, as far as I see it.I can agree with you, that often we lose freedom trying to gain peace, but either way aren't we a slave to something? I call myself a Communist, but really I am more politically an idealistically agnostic more than anything. What is he difference between being a slave to large government, or being a slave to society? Republicans, Democrats (I call them Republicrats), Liberals, Conservatives (I call them Conserberals), they are all one if the same man. Because wether we want to see it or note the CEOs of the corporations that I hate, are in bed with the government officials that you hate. Me personally, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I believe that the pros of bigger government (of course with exception to totalitarianism) outweigh the Cons. That is just me though. I really enjoyed having this debate with you, as it was my first real one on this site,and I look forward dot many more.
Why should it be Capitalistic and Consumeristic? You don't need to buy mushrooms, just go out and pick them. As far as DMT is concerned, the plants where it can be extracted, can be purchased on the web from sites that specialize and dedicate their stock to entheogenic substances. Its the same difference between choosing to buy at wal-mart, or a mom-and-pop store. Yes the United States is a mixed, economy, but it would be foolish to not say that the paradigm the U.S adheres to one of Capitalism and Consumerism. Don't believe me? Try running for a political position, say you are in favor of socialism, and you are committing political suicide. America is associated with championing the free market.
And yes I certainly think the hippies are a reason, but that would really be seeing the smaller picture of things. You are certainly entitled to your opinion though! Hahaha and if Nixon would have tripped, I think he would have been thrust into hell. That guy had some issues for real..
The reason I put the McKenna quote, is because when you think about it, what is the most individual aspect of ourselves? Our consciousness! If we aren't free to even experiment with that, than what freedom do we really have?
Im not trying to debate with you, we are advocating the same things, just thought I would clarify :)
1) I will leave it at I misunderstood you
2) I am familiar with Adam Smith. Although I have not read Wealth of Nations to its full extent, I am informed enough to know that Smith was not the champion of Small government and Capitalism that people make him out to be
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."-Adam Smith
Read through wealth of nations some more and you will see that you could pick out quotations to support either side, but ultimately Adam Smith realized that without the role of government intervention in public affairs, society would be horrible.
Adam Smith is terribly misquoted and misunderstood, as reaffirmed in full detail by Noam Chomsky,and after pondering, I will take his word for it, as my intellectual ability is a drop in the bucket compared to his. And yes Anarchy is not restrained to non government, but lets be perfectly honest, that is what people associate anarchy with first and foremost.
3) How are christian morals apart of Christianity? That makes no sense. Christian+ Morality=Christianity. They are intrinsic to each other. If you believe in Islamic morals, then ultimately you are Muslim. Same goes for all religions.
4)Yes big government is founded because sometimes government is the only solution. at the very least bigger government can be a catalyst for change that would otherwise never take place. Im sure you are familiar with the worker conditions in the early 1900s. They were horrible. Workers were in constant danger, without any benefits from their employers, and they hardly got payed for it. Labor Unions started, and eventually the government got involved, and things like minimum wage came into the picture. How could this have been achieved without government intervention? This is what Adam Smith was talking about at the end of Wealth of Nations
Well up until the Civil War, Congress had been sweeping the issue of slavery under the rug for much too long. Tensions built with events such as Nat Turner's rebellion, and John Brown's radical abolitionist preaching. Eventually things just got out of hand, and it resulted in the Civil War. So, yes the Civil War was a necessary evil, because it HAD to happened sooner or later.
