182 lines
8.3 KiB
Plaintext
182 lines
8.3 KiB
Plaintext
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
|
|
From: lemay@netcom.com (Laura Lemay)
|
|
Subject: Nitrous ramblings
|
|
Message-ID: <lemayC6xMpJ.1In@netcom.com>
|
|
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 21:08:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lo, all.
|
|
|
|
Two things:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of people have been asking nitrous questions recently. There
|
|
isn't a Nitrous FAQ on ftp.u.washington.edu. I've got some free time.
|
|
I'm a writer. Hence: I'm writing one.
|
|
|
|
Send me info you have kicking about. I know lots about whip-its; its
|
|
just about everything else I need to know about. :)
|
|
|
|
- N20 is not N02. What is it N02 is again?
|
|
|
|
- Why is it N20 does what it does, i.e. chemically. Why does oxygen
|
|
deprivation make it more interesting?
|
|
|
|
- How can you get ahold of it in canisters (the big ones, not whip-its).
|
|
|
|
- Dangers, rumors of dangers (burns holes in your lungs, kills major brain
|
|
cells, causes menengitis/alzheimers/bad taste in shoes/whatever)
|
|
|
|
- Medical grade vs. everything else, what are the risks/problems/warnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secondly, I'm the one that posted a while ago about finding the secret
|
|
to the universe on nitrous, and I should have known that people would
|
|
ask me what it was. :) Its taken me a while to figure out how to
|
|
actually write about my nitrous expreiences, just cause words are
|
|
rather limiting when you talk about the wide expanse of what you can
|
|
understand when you're on nitrous. But here goes.
|
|
|
|
Before I start, a disclaimer: this is long and trippy-sounding. I'm
|
|
embarrassed as hell about posting it, cause its not at all what usually
|
|
appears on this newsgroup, and a lot of it is wild speculation that I
|
|
find fascinating, even four months after discovering it on nitrous.
|
|
Note that I've never read any philosophy, including psychedelic philosophy.
|
|
I am not at all religious, in fact I'm anti-religion. I'm not sure
|
|
what relevance that has to all of this, but I felt it was important to
|
|
mention. I thought of this all on my own. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I need to explain how I start thinking when I've had a
|
|
lot of nitrous. A couple people have posted or sent me mail
|
|
describing the effect as being like uncovering layers, or of things
|
|
being recursive. Those are both good words.
|
|
|
|
I read once that most major breakthroughs in thought have taken place
|
|
not because of an incremental increase in knowledge, but because of a
|
|
paradigm shift. The thoery, as far as I could remember it, was that
|
|
within a paradigm, incremental breakthroughs in understanding could
|
|
only take you so far. But to really progress someone has to hold up
|
|
then entire paradigm to the light and come up with a diffierent
|
|
paradigm; then the cycle can start over again. The problem is that
|
|
those who end up tossing out the old paradigm are usually thought of
|
|
as crackpots and villified by thier peers for doing just that, and it
|
|
may take years before eople decide that the paradigm-shifter was actually
|
|
right.
|
|
|
|
The prime example of all this is Galileo and the sun-revolves-around
|
|
the earth paradigm; science had gone only so far in explaining things
|
|
under that paradigm, and they were unable to explain many other things
|
|
(sorry I'm being so vague; I don't remember the details). When the
|
|
paradigm shifted, and it was more commonly believed that the earth
|
|
revolves around the sun, the problems made more sense. But it took
|
|
someone to question that fundamental fact (as it was believed to be)
|
|
for the change to take place.
|
|
|
|
My point in mumbling about all this nonsense is that sometimes its hard
|
|
to see the forest for the trees; sometimes its hard to back up far enough
|
|
into the paradign that you question the paradigm itself. Nitrous, for
|
|
me, makes it easier. It makes it easy to question things you have never
|
|
questioned before, to step back and see the bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
But it doesn't stop there. Once you've examined one paradigm and found
|
|
its problem, you've got another paradigm to fool with. And then the
|
|
nitrous makes you examine *that* paradigm. Its like an infinite onion;
|
|
you peel away one belief and there's another beneath it. And another
|
|
beneath that. And on. And on.
|
|
|
|
I've had many nitrous conversations with myself that dealt with wild
|
|
religious conspiracy thoeries, whether animals think, how it is I can
|
|
come up with ideas for short stories, and many other things I can't
|
|
remember off hand. But my most mind-expanding nitrous trip of all was
|
|
one where I started thinking about perception in general and just what
|
|
reality means.
|
|
|
|
I started out thinking of the phrase "I'll believe it when I see it
|
|
with my own eyes." Or not necessarily that phrase in an of itself,
|
|
but the idea that truth only exists if we can see it, or hear it, or
|
|
taste it, or whatever, for ourselves. We rely on our perceptions to
|
|
draw conclusions and accumulate knowledge.
|
|
|
|
But our perceptions can't necessarily tell us the whole truth, cause
|
|
there are things outside those perceptions that exist, but we can't
|
|
perceive of them with the raw equipment we have. For example, 300
|
|
years ago there were no microscopes, and people could not see viruses
|
|
or bacteria. It wasn't until we found a way to expand our vision into
|
|
the very very small via microscopes that we were able to find out that
|
|
microorganisms exist.
|
|
|
|
There are thousands of examples of bits of knoweldge that we didn't
|
|
know about because we did not have the ability to bring the data into
|
|
the focus of our senses, to perceive it and learn about it. We had to
|
|
keep pushing on the "too small to see" or "too quiet to hear", and so on,
|
|
boundaries before these things came into focus. Therefore it follows
|
|
that if there were things that were beyond the extremes of our senses
|
|
then, there are STILL things out there that we still haven't been able
|
|
to observe.
|
|
|
|
At this point in my thinking, the onion peeled back. If there are
|
|
things beyond the extremes of our perception that we have only just
|
|
discovered, and there are still things out there beyond those
|
|
extremes, then perhaps it follows that there are also forms of
|
|
perception we have not yet discovered. Perhaps there are more than five
|
|
senses, but we just don't understand what they are because they are
|
|
not as observable to us as the original five. Perhaps there is reality
|
|
out there that we'll never be able to understand because we don't have
|
|
senses that will be able to find it, and we have no way to build machines
|
|
that will open up those doors of perception to us.
|
|
|
|
Layers, layers of perception and reality. I know it all sounds really
|
|
stupid. I'm reading this over and thinking "ack, you're not going to
|
|
POST this, are you? How embarrassing." But this is exactly the way
|
|
that nitrous makes you think.
|
|
|
|
After musing about all this for a bit, my mind began to fold back in
|
|
to the present. In order to come up with this concept of inifnite
|
|
knowledge contained in infinite perceptive forms, I had to be under
|
|
the influence of a substance that makes my mind think in different ways --
|
|
that *changes my perception.*
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, unlike according to common knowledge, drugs don't *distort*
|
|
reality, or pervert perception. Perhaps they are gateways into
|
|
different forms of perception that we don't yet understand. Perhaps
|
|
its only drug users who are looking at the future, at the alternate
|
|
paradigms, at the different ways of seeing things that "normal" people
|
|
may not find for hundred of years or not ever at all.
|
|
|
|
And if you follow that theory, isn't it sad that drug users are
|
|
persecuted, teased, frowned at, and treated as criminals for not being
|
|
"normal," for using drugs to "escape from reality." Maybe we're not
|
|
escaping. Can you really escape from a reality if you don't
|
|
understand what that reality is?
|
|
|
|
Five hundred, a thousand, some number of years from now, maybe people
|
|
will say "isn't it funny how the people of the millenium frowned on
|
|
drug use" the same way that we say "isn't it funny how people in 1600
|
|
thought the earth was flat."
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats as far as I got on this train of through, or as far as I got that
|
|
I can remember. Things get pretty strange the further down in the onion
|
|
you go while under nitrous.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps others can take this reasoning and think about it while under
|
|
the influence of nitrous or acid or whatever. Maybe you can come up
|
|
with other layers that I can't found yet. By all means, let me know
|
|
when you do.
|
|
|
|
Or perhaps you can all sit there and laugh and poke holes in my theory.
|
|
Thats OK, too. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
*********************************************************
|
|
Laura Lemay lemay@netcom.com
|
|
writer of trifles in shadows and blood
|
|
*********************************************************
|