I don't think that I myself I am dismissive of claims with regard to 'Universal Consciousness'. I accept the reality of your experience. It's just that when someone claims to have had an experience such as being spirited inside the body of a dog>, I find the specificity of that quite interesting.
I haven't had such an experience myself, but I have had other experiences of a particular nature, about which I can tell a particular story. For example, the experience of a 'Future Language'>. In this case psilocybin and Salvia both seem to have the quality of being language facilitators, which I find very interesting. Also, some of my experiences (i.e. with mushrooms) have been intense, by which I mean really fucking INTENSE.
So my main problem with UC is the attendant claims that seem to go with it, e.g., "It's the core experience", "all other experiences are peripheral", it's this idea of having had the ultimate experience and making absolute claims for it that I am not comfortable with.
I don't think I'm dismissive about it, but I have spoken to people before and heard things like, "well you can't go beyond universal consciousness" and I just think that kind of absolutism is a kind of awe-struck cul-de-sac. I like to ask questions of an experience (and during an experience), such as, "what is going on here?", or, should it be an encounter with another entity, "show me what you know".
I think there is information out there, but in contrast the UC experience is sometimes described as being so ineffable so beyond words, beyond language that nothing much can really be said about it. My personal psychedelic experiences seem to have something else to say, and for me this calls into question the 'classical' descriptions of mystical states, which talk about the 'oneness with everything' and deal with all difficult questions with 'wise-old-man wisdom', raising a finger in the air and saying "ahh".
I agree that the decision whether or not to take Salvia again it's ultimately a personal one. This is agreed a couple of times in the 'bi-located' dialogue too. But the point of my web-site is to promote the plant issue, so I like to look at the kinds of reasons that may influence a person's decision in such matters, - any person's decision, not just Mr-Bs. And I think that it's worth bearing in mind that there is so much bias in the system, that we are so strongly conditioned against the idea of ingesting plants, that it's difficult to be unaffected by this. For example I can remember a plant user saying to me that they felt it was "somehow cheating", meaning that although, granted, the effects were impressive, they perhaps ought to be trying to achieve similar states of mind without using them (e.g. via the discipline of meditating).
I gave up psychedelics too, for seven years. The reasons were complex, triggered by my first bad acid trip, when a period of abstinence may have been a good idea to think about the content, but reinforced I think by society's values about such things. So a break may have been a good idea, but seven years? - That was just wasting valuable time. It wasn't until I'd read a few books by Carlos Castaneda>, which presented for me the most indispensable and practical philosophy for dealing with these realms, that I decided it was perhaps time to get back into it.
You state that "Particularly fear should not be the primary reason for using Salvia!" Now I'm not saying that fear should be the primary for using Salvia, but fear should be confronted to the extent that one should think about what is causing it, so that perhaps one can overcome it. An analogy: Scuba diving is a bit scary, but if one personally finds it just a bit too scary to do, one should not make up arguments such, "Scuba diving is an indulgence, we belong on dry land not in the water, etc, etc". No, one should instead acknowledge one's fear for what it is. And if it is still too much, then don't go scuba diving, - it's a perfectly good reason not to do it. On the other hand, analysis of the dynamics of the fear may help one to realise that the fear can be conquered. That, for example, there is very little danger of being attacked by a shark, and the main danger is that of a panic attack, which is an issue of self-control, which can be overcome...
Same Reader's Reply...