Sacred Cactus

@psyduckmonkey,

Oh indeed sir!  Oh indeed!  Now sirs and sirsettes, it seems it is time for @psyduckmonkey and the speaker to inject some life into this forum! 

Now where shall we begin sir?  Perhaps we could, together, discern what divides meditation from action?  Or perhaps what divides perception from thought or action?  Perhaps sir we could find out what is right action with regard to psychoactive cactuses? 

Where shall we begin sir? 

@psyduckmonkey,

sir, what does it mean to miss irreverence?  perhaps we can examine it together and find out.  perhaps sir, we can look at this problem earnestly to find out together what is real. 

now to 'miss' means, in this case, to notice the absence of something.  this implies memory of that thing which is missed.  irreverence is a perceived lack of respect.  so there is a perceived reduction in the general lack of respect since @annehalonium left the shroomery.  now this irreverence was not cast out in all directions, but specifically at those approximated as zealots.  so at @psyduckmonkey senses a insufficiency, due to expectation, of irreverence aimed at zealots. 

now insufficiency is preconception isn't it sir?  that is, they are two sides of the same medal.  the moment there is a predefined expectation that is not actualized, there is insufficiency.  so insufficiency is unfulfilled expectation.   

now if insufficiency is preconception what is a zealot?  surely a zealot is a term applied to an environmental encapsulation, and so it too is preconception.  that is, residual experience is encapsulated and labelled via comparison.  so for there to be zealousness, there must be comparison.  so for a sir to find comfort in irreverence of the zealot, there must too be internal irreverence.  and when that internal irreverence is circumstantiated, there is comfort, identification.  so mechanically, unactualized irreverence of zealousness engenders insufficiency.   

are we together so far sir? 

madam, it seems there is not much action on this forum.  just the speaker and the madam.  so perhaps we could discuss together what is right interest with regard to cactuses? 

now what is belief, and what is discernment?  do you ever wonder what it is that cleaves this divide?  what divides belief, preconception, presupposition, approximation from discernment, understanding, truth, actuality, reality?  do you ever wonder what mechanically divides thought which is belief, and thought which is discernment? 

you see madam, the speaker has no beliefs, as to marry a concept to the self psychologically is to restrict one's thought/action/perception.  put differently, by saying 'i believe' one is then bound by internal logic and reasoning to adhere to a certain standard, to a certain preconception, at least partially.  therefore belief, mechanically, does effectively destroy/limit discernment/perception.   

so what is discernment?  surely discernment is perception free of subjectivity.  that is, to discern is to see oneself and the environment free of subjectivity.  that is, to meet the present free of the boundaries of the many limiting beliefs, both subtle and gross.

so we see that when we believe, when we meet the present through a screen of preconception, when we meet the present through the residual images of the past, we limit the capacity to palpate the pulse of actuality as an individual and therefore as a collective. that is, the collective result of belief is always conflict.  conflict between that which is considered and that which is.  one cannot, mechanically, meet actuality without obfuscation when seeing through the veil of belief. 

so that is why the speaker holds no beliefs.  that is why the speaker cannot immediately verify or deny your stance on any particular subject.  the speaker can only meet you in conversation free of subjective defensiveness and we, together, find out what is true. 

then there is the matter of if what we are discussing here is mystical?  to the speaker it is factual.  not some empty assertion.  we are meeting together in communion, discussing reality not mysticism.  but reality can become both mystical and factual through subjectivity.  that is, circumstance can be encapsulated by the brain as both factual or mystical, interesting or mundane, good or bad and so on. 

so the question then becomes, what is it that approximates certain similarities between our conversation and 'stuff like that' or 'trip reports'?  surely our conversation is unique and not the past. so can we, in actuality, encapsulate it with a certain definition?  what happens if we together have a conversation free of encapsulations?   

now, when something is personal, that is, when something is subjective, it is not actuality.  actuality is that which is discernible mutually, universally.  it comes about when all parties perceive without the subjective slant.  therefore the closest we will get to actuality is through the movement of mutual discernibility.  this is due to the very nature of awareness, that is, past, skews the present and conceptually creates the future. 

the speaker is not asking you to discuss yourself personally.  if we discuss ourselves personally we just widen the gap between the self and actuality.  rather the speaker suggests that we discuss what is actual, what is discernible mutually.  and when we meet each other in duality, conflicting opinion, we take this as an intimation that one or both of us is looking through the veil of subjectivity so therefore not seeing actuality.  when this happens and we don't identify, rationalize, or condemn our subjective stance, but instead look at it earnestly, we find out truly what is the self, what is reality.  relationship is consciousness and to be is to be related. 

now, is this not linguistically what is the psychedelic experience madam?  certainly it is not just elves and patterns?  but an unveiling of the self?  an unveiling of reality free of subjectivity?         

indeed, a seed tek would be ideal.  perhaps a soil tek for lophophora grown on its own roots..  even some experimentation with regard to lighting for lophs grown on their own roots.  the speaker recently spoke with someone who asserts that a 4 cm plant, grown on its own roots from seed is quite possible in 1-1.5 years with proper care.  but many factors must be nailed. 

it is discernibly necessary to move past the cactus.  as the cactus is merely one integrated component of actuality. and actuality, mechanically, is the you and the speaker.  we may have our particular differences subjectively, historically, but mechanically, abstractly, we are the same not only as each other, but as the cactus which brings us together.   

so we see that peeps must get high.  they must get paid and laid.  this is compulsion.  the self, which is the accumulator of experience, of memory, of the past, extrapolates the past through the present to conceptualize the future.  conceptualization creates insufficiency in the present, which is compulsion, drive, the need to get paid, laid, or sit in the shade. 

now, incompetence arises only through comparison.  for there to be incompetent, there must be the comparative idea of competent.  and for the self to approximate the other as incompetent, there must be the ideation that the self is comparatively more competent.  this is surely one of the gross examples of subjectivity.  there are others, which are considerably more subtle. 

then there is the matter of the system.  the system, while gross with particulars, can be subtle with regard to subjectivity.  the system is the relationship between the individual and the many.  and it is the cumulative individual compulsions that engender and sustain the system.  so naturally, it breaks down in the absence of compulsion. 

then we have the matter of analysis.  madam, is self awareness through analysis a possibility?  can one consider the self, which is the past, and bring about an understanding of the process of the i mechanically or will the consideration of the past merely bring about an understanding of what the self is subjectively?  does not the very movement of self consideration refurbish the approximation of the self, and never deepen the understanding of the self as a process?   

next, there is the matter of global insta hallucinations.  to the speaker, there is already an expansive global hallucination called subjectivity.  there is reality, which is mutually discernible, and then there is subjectivity, which is the cause of conflict both inwardly and outwardly.  that is, the world is split nationalistically, religiously, financially, politically, and socially- quite systemically.  madam, when the you, and the i, speak of this global insta hallucination, are we not speaking of a movement along the same plane of consciousness?  the same plane of consideration?  madam, what to you, is global insta hallucination?     

certainly the complexity is in the layers of subjectivity that exist between the capacity to accumulate experience and actuality.  the ideals.  the approximations of the self.  the approximations of environment.  the associations tied to things, concepts, to people.  certainly that is what is most complex. 

as for your techs coming to you in those moments of inner silence, those moments without conflict, without duality, that is undoubtably true.  isn't it so madam, that truth cannot be sought after?  cannot be chased psychologically?  that truth, is not something we can pursue, but rather something that is constantly bombarding the senses for the entirety of our existence?  isn't it so, that truth is that indefinable movement from which we have/are emerged/submerged?  and that it is subjectivity, with its fears, its approximations, its beliefs, its preconceptions, that destroy truth?  that destroy understanding? 

if that is so madam, then it is discernible that your techs came into your consciousness in those moments of stillness.  for truth, understanding, is coming to you, not the other way around.  if we watch very closely, in ourselves, around us, then we can see that truth is never something we can chase down and apprehend.  instead it is our senses that reflect it.  but the reflective capacity is weakened by the imposition of subjectivity, of seeking, of belief and preconception.  isn't that so madam?  that we are deeply immersed in understanding - but so often we are wearing the scuba suit of subjectivity.

so what does it mean to be deficient of time?  what do we mean by time?  there is chronological time.  and certainly you are not deficient of that.  you are a relatively young woman.  healthy.  intelligent.  so you are not deficient in time chronologically.  then, there is psychological time.  memory, as it accumulates, creates time.  it creates the past, and then uses the past, through the present to project expectation.  the accumulation of memory forms subjectivity.  and subjectivity brings about compulsion.  surely one could, theoretically, sit under a tree in this supposed state of non duality, drooling and such, completely free of the layers of subjective thought, and free up a tremendous amount of time. 

but that will not occur.  instead, the elements of memory, build compulsion.  time, which is memory, builds impulse through the accumulation of self approximation and expectation.  put differently, the self learns, through the aggregation of experience, to perceive through certain layers of expectation.  and that is what has happened to your time.  chronologically there is an abundance of time, but psychologically, there is constraint, inwardly there is expectation.  there is the seeking of a certain approximation of the self - the future.  so we live within the shadow of this approximation.  isn't that is madam?  isn't that what happened to your time?         



 

the mason jar cacti are rerooting madam.  the speaker found them painfully difficult to maintain given the particulars of the set up, at least relative to growing nine per three inch pot.  the shape of the cups, the unscrewing of the lids...  but the speaker has not given up on your method.  the short lived experiment certainly proved there is validity to what you present.  soil will have to do for now.  there are still many subtleties to discern regarding soil for lophs, pereskiopsis, and trichocereus. 

what is time anyways madam?  certainly we see that the self, or i process is composed of the past.  that is, the residual experience recorded by the brain, splits experiencing into the experiencer and the experienced, thereby creating the self and the subjective environment. memory, or time, is the result of this capacity to store residual experience.  so then consciousness, is the cumulative relationship between the capacity to store experience residually and the environment free of subjectivity.  understanding then, is the movement towards congruency with the what is. whereas memory, is the residue left on the brain through incomplete experience.  so we see that there is both memory and understanding stored by the brain to bring about the subjective approximation of self and that of environment, the experiencer and the experienced.  certainly there is a force that cleaves the divide between memory and understanding.  only together can we discern what is that force.  in isolation, that force will forever remain a mystery.  that is the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE madam.  that is right relationship. 

so then what is it to be time deficient?  fundamentally?  what is it madam, to find the self without time?     

indeed!  madam, the KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE is quite simple superficially, but increases in complexity proportionate to the swelling profundity of the participant.  it works like this:  just read one book by Jiddu Krishnamurti, then eat 1+ foot of cactus or equivalent (legally of course!) and describe your experience.  the smartest brain thoughts win the BIG BIG MONEY!!!

well anne, getting ready to do some astrophytum myriostigma grafts.  learned lots over the winter about soil mixes for lophophora.  went from using the store bought to a mix of the following:

1.  1/4 chip graval
2.  1/4 limestone
3.  pearlite
4.  worm castings

i think the peat based mix brought on some disease.  likely a fungus that killed a number of plants.  so i'll be using some variation of this from now on.  learning perfect drainage is key to allow for frequent waterings with light fertilizer to speed up growth for lophs on their own roots.  trying to source pumice too but tough around here.  sounds like it might be easier from wherever you're from.  playing around with a couple cup grafts like you showed. 

i'm down for a grafting contest on here if no one wants to have a KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE.  krishnamurti challenges are way cooler though. 

contest eh?  is anyone down for a KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE?  A CHANCE TO WIN BIG BIG MONEY???

i can make more noise if you want anne.  i've got lots to say.   

roach, can you talk about your plans/what went wrong? 

major mite and rot issues this winter.. but this one continues to grow quite strongly!  seeing the benefits of soilless mixes for the bug issues alone.     

update!  hope everybody is doing well!  the date this one was grafted was actually april 19, 2015.  so here is one year of growth in two pictures. 

I'm pumped up anne halonium! 

also cool.  so much potential with these things to treat addiction.  nice to see opinions shifting.  i could never eat a cactus though.  they're too prickly.