RevLeft
Go Back   RevLeft > Post-Something
Register FAQ Members List RevLeft Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

RevLeft Shortage Alert
RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $22.50 below the monthly needed amount of $140. Help Revleft keep running - please subscribe for a monthly donation now!


Conversation Between Post-Something and spiltteeth
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 16
  1. spiltteeth
    5th September 2009 01:36
    spiltteeth
    Yea, I used to like dissociatives. I actually overdosed and was hospitalized for DXM - dextromorphon. It;s the stuff in robotussin that people robo-trip too. I used to just order the powder from an industrial supplier, I'd throw a bs header on my order saying I was a chemistry proff and never had a problem.
    Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
  2. Post-Something
    5th September 2009 01:25
    Post-Something
    Nice choices
    We're having a huge Munch showing over here in Glasgow, gonna see it as soon as I get a chance.

    I use Ketamine because it's surprisingly numbing and relaxing for the mind warping and visual distortions it gives you; no paranoia. I like dissociatives I guess.
    Shame about your friend though; although I can't for the life of me imagine what kind of a person would mix those two drugs, seems kind of pointless to me.
    Another drug which I guess is in the same leage as K is 2cb, that's really interesting stuff.

    Thanks, I'll pick up the book when I get a chance
    With my feelings? Something creative. Depending on what mood I'm in. I go through cycles of activities; I just got out of an intense film watching cycle for instance.

    Have a look at this link and tell me what you think btw: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/Typefour.asp
  3. spiltteeth
    5th September 2009 00:56
    spiltteeth
    2
    Anyway, I don;t know if church or religion is right for you.
    I'd recommend Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl, its easy to read and a thrilling story from the leader of the 3rd Viennese school of psychology about how he came up with his idea's while in a Nazi concentration camp.
    It must have been an incredible shock to meet yr mother at 18! I can't imagine. I'm lucky I have an outlet to express my self in art - what do you do with all yr feelings?
    I actually got into psychology so I could intellectualize my pain and not have to feel it. Avoiding suffering is what really hurts and I'm an expert at running away! I struggle with relationships and trying to have a meaningful connection with people. It's terribly painful when you don't know how to love or be loved.
  4. spiltteeth
    5th September 2009 00:55
    spiltteeth
    Well, I love Kirchner. I'm really into a lot of the symbolists like Odilon Redon,James Ensor, Rouault, Klee, Giacometti, Kubin, Munch, Miro, Gorky, Matta, and my fav Max Beckmen.

    Ketamine! Thats such a bizarre drug. Are you using it to induce a mystical experience?
    I used to buy it a hundred bottles at once, we'd be cooking it up all night, back then it was dirt cheap, depending if it was red top or not. My buddy would inject K 24/7, eventually he lapsed into a psychosis where he thought he was god.
    Actually, my best friend when I was 16 did K and he mixed it with H, he was odd, and one night the mixture killed him.
    I don't know if religion is the way to go. Nothing in the Bible, except the resurrection of Christ, is in my opinion factual.
    This is how my church 'reads' the bible :
    'spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but never just literally'
  5. Post-Something
    4th September 2009 23:19
    Post-Something
    Start here:

    Ok, I can understand the evolution of it all, but when I come across a religious claim, such as "God created the universe", for example, do I see it as a scientific claim? Do I see it as a story to help me place myself in the world? What if the two notions of what has happened in the past, and where I came from, contradict each other? How can both be equally valid? Most religious claims sound to me like claims that can only be verified scientifically.

    Coke bores me, and I've had no luck with acid. Heroin is just unavailable. Ketamine is my personal favorite.
  6. Post-Something
    4th September 2009 23:15
    Post-Something
    What am I reading Frued and Jung FOR? That's a good question. I never met my mother until I turned 18, and at the end of the meeting, I suddenly began to feel, for the first time in my life, tremendous guilt and anxiety. I still have this aching neurosis, and I think it's because my super ego only recently formed, with the late first resolution of the oedipus complex. This led to huge identity problems, revealing reservoirs of shame and narcissism, which I thought I'd never have to unveil to myself. That's why I'm sort of interested in religion, partly because of being unable to cope with a meaningless life, and partly because I want to build a stable identity. Any advice?

    Also, artwise, I like Expressionism, surrealism, cubism..other isms etc. Favorite artists are Kandinsky, Gauguin, Kirchner, Dali, Monet and Courbet; although lately I've started to really admire Warhol. I like a lot of stuff. Yourself?

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  7. spiltteeth
    4th September 2009 20:04
    spiltteeth
    part 4
    As for me,
    I was deep into heroin and coke, but I also drank about a 5th of vodka a day plus pills. I got busted with 2 pnds weed 2 pnds coke 5 vials acid. I do have some training in psychoanalysis, but working in institutions among the mentally ill proved very unhealthy for me, in fact I recently had a break down and just got out of the mental ward 8 months ago. Even sober, I'm still not too stable, I got deep into gambling these past 2 yrs and am in the hole 10's and 10's of thousands, but I feel better and am staying away from the cards.
    What are you reading Freud and Jung for? I find some of the concepts are easier to grasp in biographies about them. Do you like any particular art? I got in a gallery awhile ago with some other artists.
  8. spiltteeth
    4th September 2009 20:03
    spiltteeth
    PART 3
    Personhoodʼ is constituted entirely through oneʼs relationship with their family
    and tribe. Instead of the self deciding to believe in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers) understood that their persons, their selves, were not defined via interiority, but by relationally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their environment. There was no existent self independent of these
    relationships. And, pre-modernity, they understood that “God is not bound by any
    external rational truths” Thus, ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality
    was how one behaved relationally.
    It can only be apprehended subjectively and relationally within the context of community. As for actual individual experience, Some might argue that a religious experience can be considered epistemic knowledge, in a foundationalist sense and with Cartesian certainty, but I don't get that deep.
  9. spiltteeth
    4th September 2009 20:02
    spiltteeth
    PART 2
    Modernity was an post-Enlightenment advancement on the Pre-modern where Reality was described primarily in terms of a revealed historical telos leading toward salvation for the whole world through Jesus Christ. The seventeenth century Enlightenment, through Descartes, introduced a dualism previously not imagined between matter and God, mind and body, the real and the unreal. Both modernity and post-
    modernity are ʻprojectsʼ of the Enlightenment movement. Religion, as we imagine it today was not really ʻinventedʼ until the Enlightenment. In pre-modernity, the self is only constituted through an interior relationality with God. The person does not really exist outside this relationship. Likewise, pre-modern Reality was believed to be an advancement on the Biblical where Reality is described in terms of a
    historical telos leading toward salvation revealed to a chosen people, Israel, by their god, YHWH. Persons still do not have a ʻself.ʼ
  10. spiltteeth
    4th September 2009 20:01
    spiltteeth
    ONE Well, a postmodernist would view religion as one narrative among many, of which science is one, in which a person can frame their experience. A jungian would might see religion and religious symbols as mediating devices between the subjects ego and the subjects true Self - in other words a dialogue between the conscious and the unconscious, and Jung believed in a universal unconscious. A logo-therapist, such as Victor Frankl would view religion in terms of meaning. Mr. Frankl survived Auchwitz by giving his experience meaning by framing the experience in terms of his belief. Some would bring up transrationality -which is non-rational but not irrational. I view belief in God in relational terms, you see, In modernity, the self exists as an autonomous, self-directed being, entirely constituted through the interiority of the person.

All times are GMT. The time now is 16:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.