flog

A couple weekends ago an acquaintance was sharing some of his wilder drug experiences from his youth. Talking about the effects of LSD and mushrooms he noted that in large doses one achieves "ego loss", which got me to thinking again about the mind.

There's at least 2 ways to interpret ego loss. Mystical-wise, you could say that it is an instance of your individual consciousness melting back into the universal consciousness (atman, Christ consciousness, whatever). Material-wise, you could say the drug interferes with the network or networks of neurons that create the inner narrative that we experience as I to the point that the narrative shuts down for a while - leaving one ego-less. Either way, it seems that ego loss supports the notion of personal consciousness being something of an illusion. The result of flurrying neural activity, but not an object in its own right.

It seems classical dualism has no adequate explanation for ego loss. If I *am* my soul, my soul is distinct from "my body", and my soul drives my body then how can ego loss occur? The immaterial soul cannot possibly be injured or stunned by chemicals.

Obviously, the mind is not completely shutdown when ego loss occurs because the individual remembers having the experience. The inner dialogue or the ability to distinguish self from ground is shutdown. The sensation is that I have melted into my surroundings. It's the constant presence of the narrative that creates the illusion "I" is continuous or permanent during normal/sober consciousness.

One could argue that since consciousness in maintained throughout ego loss, that this is evidence for the immortal soul, but that ignores the frequent claims that I am my soul. How can the soul be conscious without there being any consciousness of "I"? For the objection to make any sense, you have to presume the existence of an immaterial soul.

Which one of you is Joel?

secular humanism at it's finest.

Is it ironic that Joseph Suglia's book review of Palahniuk's Rant, wherein much is made of Chuck's functional illiteracy, contains this snippet of non-grammar:

  In other words, Palahniuk simply spews forth into his computer an 

  infantilized version what sophisticated writers have written before him.

  

Why has [Tetris] become such a staple of the gaming culture? The answer? patriarchy.

"Marcel Danesi can appreciate the natural human impulse to crave meaning from a void. 'You have an aesthetic response, then we look for meaning,' says Danesi, a University of Toronto semiotician who wrote _Of Cigarettes, High Heels, and Other Interesting Things : An Introduction to Semiotics_. 'Both of these are important to humanity.'"

<Andy Rooney>Have you ever noticed that you don't have to believe in things that are real? You don't have to believe in Ohm's Law to get your ass shocked by a 110V outlet nor do you have to believe in Newton's law of universal gravitation to plummet to your death.

Why do I have to believe in Jesus before it'll work? </Andy Rooney>

Don't miss this moment.

You fart with your power full.

  

I know of no one who suggests I should take a positive view of cops who commit criminal acts. Isn't "dirty cop" the by-word for vile asshole? And yet, I am confronted on all sides by people not just voicing their support, or asking me to lend my support, but rather commanding me thru their bumper stickers and lawn signs to support "the troops".

As I understand it, these soldiers volunteered to take part in the execution of a war that anyone with a 3rd grade education could have seen was not legitimate nor being carried out for the excuses given. They are supposed to defend the Constitution of the United States instead they are volunteering to murder people.

I don't see where the analogy with the dirty cop breaks down.