“Transcendence is conscious dissociation;

dissociation is unconscious transcendence.”

In the essay Full Release, I outline my position on how there is a final threshold that is met and breached that defines what a peak experience with 5 is. What I did not discuss in that text is how the approach to that encounter determines much of the quality of it. The quality of the experience has much to do with the value of what is taken away. This is the topic of this essay.

In his book, The Toad and the Jaguar, the late Ralph Metzner shares about his experimentations with 5. The result of those trials lead him to establish a format (using insufflation as a route of administration) that allowed for a variety of interventions to be made when participants were in sub-threshold states (pre-samadhic, or, not quite full release). His preference for ‘positioning’ participants anywhere prior to the threshold (which would demarcate the full release) seems to be for an aspect of “I” to be present/active. Having or maintaining an element of the conscious self as the ideal way to effectively process repressed material is a widely accepted belief in trauma-informed frameworks. I don’t hold that view in its entirety but I believe Metzner’s approach was congruent with his beliefs and teachings.

“Rather than a dissociated out-of-body trance state […], [pre-full release states are] absorptive trance states where awareness remains in the body but is simultaneously expanded into extra-dimensional and infra-somatic realms, and with full memory on returning. We have found also that having and holding the intention to remember the experience enhances the re-membering, thereby connecting the deeper realizations with everyday consciousness.”

With the Metzner methodology (and I daresay lineage), subjective experiencing is intended to remain intact. This means that it is preferred that the self is present enough to be able to have an experience, even if it’s self-experiencing. If I overlie his methodology onto Bentinho Massaro’s diagram (expanded on in Full Release), Metzner’s preferred sub-threshold zone is the same as Massaro’s depiction of a continuum of stages of the association between subject and object: from “subject-objects” (on the right-hand side) to “pure subject-no object” (towards the left-hand side). Only when a (supposedly final) threshold is crossed is there a full break of association between subject and object, since there results the complete absence of subjective experience (no subject).

In other words, crossing that line (the vertical line furthest to the left) from right to left on the Massaro diagram was what Metzner seemed to try to avoid. Left of that line is what Metzner refers to as “a dissociated out-of-body state” or “a transcendent, out-of-body or absorptive trance state that can be only partially remembered and described afterwards.” In terms of positioning the participant, that line experientially corresponds to a complete (psychological) dissociation. And if that line were a dose of 5 (such as 15mg), it would represent the dissociative dose (DD-50).

That’s a lot of variations of the same word! So let’s look a little closer:

Dissociation (dictionary)
1 the action of disconnecting or separating or the state of being disconnected
(psychiatry) separation of some aspects of mental functioning from conscious awareness, leading to a degree of mental dysfunction or to mental conditions including dissociative identity disorder

Psychological dissociation (Metzner)
Unconsciousness of one’s own bodily postures and gestures, vocalizations and verbalizations, as well as more or less total disconnect of awareness of one’s surroundings

Dissociative dose (DD) – 50 (Metzner)
The dosage at which about half the subjects, or half the experiences, involve some degree of dissociation

In the context of 5, the fullest degree of dissociation is a full release. Metzner refers to this as psychological dissociation: a complete separation from all sense of self (subject) and all objects of experience. In another word, unconsciousness.

unconscious (dictionary)
[adjective]
1 not awake and aware of and responding to one’s environment
2 done or existing without one realising
(unconscious of) unaware of

[noun] the unconscious
the part of the mind which is inaccessible to the conscious mind but which affects behaviour and emotions: horrific apparitions surfaced out of the recesses of his unconscious.

For the purpose of this essay, when speaking of dissociation, I am not referring to the above psychiatric definition (separation of some aspects of mental functioning from conscious awareness). This is not to dismiss nor exclude the acknowledgement of a continuum of parts or divisions of personality that relate to trauma. Parts and other theories of structural dissociation in the personality are elaborated well elsewhere. For example, Bianca Sebben:

“Dissociation can be like a defense against realisation: an inability to grasp aspects of the external experience, and where there is profound non-realisation (phobia of internal experience), different avoided aspects of the trauma are held in various dissociative parts that have their own corresponding physiology—different somatic precursors such as sensations, gestures, and movements.”

Distinctions to be realised

“Transcendence is conscious dissociation;

dissociation is unconscious transcendence.”

In the dense phrase above is a very nuanced distinction between what it means to transcend and what it means to dissociate. The two actions are clearly similar and the variable is the state of consciousness. It’s the approach to unconsciousness I will unpack here, overlaying the frameworks of subject-object as well as surrender-submission relationships.

White-out or blackout experiences precede a temporary loss of consciousness. It is easy to judge a loss of consciousness as undesirable, especially if it is believed that the only way to heal is when the sense of self is aware of what is happening. However, the quality of how one experiences unconsciousness (a full release of the subject from its association with object) is important to consider as one may consent to that. Consenting to a full release is what leads to what may be deemed as transcendent. Not consenting to a full release is what leads to what may be deemed as dissociation.

In the essay With Surrender in Mind, the surrender-submission binary is explored at length. These two words are very similar and their meaning may vary from person to person.

I use the word submission to indicate a subject giving way to an overwhelming force/factor. To overwhelm is to render the subject incapable of conscious choice as well as effective resistance. Unconscious resistance is a mechanism of patterning, usually a strategic protective response such as: typical fight-flight-freeze-fawn actions, sabotage or other strategies to divert attention. These are unconscious means to dissociate . Furthermore, even if the subject is overwhelmed, it’s not wholly related to the quantity of the force. The subject may be overwhelmed because individual factors affect the intensity of the experience.

A submission experience with 5 is when the dose provides leverage for the nervous system to open but is unnecessarily excessive, resulting in a forcing. What is excessive is unique to that individual.

 I use the word surrender to indicate a subject giving way to a seemingly external element (object) that does not overwhelm. Surrender indicates either a choice or a capacity to not be overwhelmed but rather to give way to the external element consciously. Even if there is an acknowledgement of a potentially overwhelming force, surrender demonstrates a degree of agency.

A surrender experience with 5 is when the dose provides leverage for the nervous system to open as well as allows for the individual’s nervous system to stay open. The adequate leverage for a full release is unique to that individual.

 This means that the DD (dissociative dose) is not a stable factor. The point/line at which transcendence or dissociation occurs is different for each person and often different each time.

Returning to the focal sentence then:

“Transcendence is conscious dissociation” relates to surrender.

“Dissociation is unconscious transcendence” relates to submission.

After having taken the time to explore what is meant by dissociation in this context, what is transcendence then?

Transcendence (noun)
existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level

Transcend (verb)
be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere)

Transcendent (adjective)
beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience
(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.

The absolute transcendent experience is also, just like dissociation, the complete separation (dissolution?) of subject from object (unconsciousness). However, it happens by way of the subject’s capacity to surrender to that “limitation”. The material universe, in the above definition of transcendent, is, in my view, the “realm” of objects of experience. Anything that can be experienced is object in relation to subject (which is the experiencer). And if the experiencer consciously lets go of experience, it is to transcend experience. In other words, complete transcendence isn’t actually an experience. Therefore, it can’t actually be remembered, since there was nothing to be aware of. With no subject to experience anything, there is no remembering.

Ritualised surrender: a medicinal pathway to unconsciousness

Metzner et al believe that arriving at a state of unconsciousness (complete psychological dissociation) is a disadvantageous route for healing. Positioning individual consciousness left of that line is not widely seen to be conducive to processing “…the deeper realizations with everyday consciousness.” I certainly agree with this if the pathway to unconsciousness has been dissociation. I don’t agree with this if the pathway to unconsciousness has been transcendent.

I argue here that not only is there nothing inherently wrong with arriving at unconsciousness, there is something extraordinarily beneficial with it. The pathway for that to be beneficial is for it to be arrived at through transcendence. This approach is made possible by a surrender to rather than a submission to. From a white-out or a blackout and every experience in between, the opportunity for a well-orchestrated “out” is a large part of what makes 5 atypical amongst psychedelics and a reliable ally on the direct path.

The surrender that allows an individual (subject) to transcend the confines (object) which define them. The release that fully liberates the primordial awareness (no subject) that has funnelled into manifestations of a sense of self (pure subject), and individuated shapes and forms (subject-objects) in order to experience something. The ritual of a safe, secure, solid, and sacred container that aims not to overwhelm but invites the individual to consciously say YES to going out their own mind—fully, completely.

Through ritualised surrender, the state (unconsciousness) that is like nothing I can imagine (because “I” is not there) is a salve. In the words of Jason Silva:

“…many people are afflicted with a pathological amount of anxiety and depression. It’s what Jamie Wheal calls “21st century normal”: this fibrillating anxious state from an overactive ego stemming from a misfiring default mode network which is the autobiographical mind which is essentially metastasized into something that is a kind of autoimmune disorder of the self and the excessive rumination and self-consciousness that characterizes depression and anxiety both come from a mind that has become too ordered, too rigid, too hyper-vigilant.

It’s like we’re all living with a perpetual micro-PTSD. And what the research tells us […] is that in safe containers and with the proper precautions deployed, the experience of ecstatic surrender, the experience of ego death—what Jamie Wheal calls the Bliss-fuck crucifixion— is actually where all the healing is done.”

It’s possible that healing with 5 is to transcend the limitations of being human.


Being is out of control, if we let it.

“The two types of peak experiences are relative and absolute. Relative characterise those peak experiences in which there remains an awareness of subject and object, and which are extensions of the individual’s own experiences. They are not true mystical experiences, but rather inspirations, ecstasies, and raptures. It is thought that probably the majority of peak experiences fall into this category. Absolute peak experiences are characteristic of mystical experiences, and are comparable to experiences of great mystics in history. They are timeless, spaceless, and characterised by unity, in which the subject and object becomes one.”
– Alan G. Hefner

Coined around 2009 by the Temple of Awakening Divinity, a “full release” is a term that refers to the potential peak experience with 5. Here in this text, I aim to unpack that term. Many—practitioners and participants alike—have difficulty understanding it, and rightfully so! “A release of what?”, one might ask. “How full is full?“, asks another. All this—and more—is at the heart of the matter in the following paragraphs, sprinkled with quotes and definitions along the way, consistent with my writing style.

The term full release seems to be used often as a description of the experience itself, even though it’s not clear as to what it refers to. I think of the term as describing a mechanism or a mode of action; a release is an action and the full refers to the quality or range of that action. If it is indeed a mechanism/mode of action, then the term aims to describe how a peak experience with 5 happens. If one accepts the true notion of mystery and what is ineffable, the peak experience itself can’t actually be described. So describing the how it happens or the what of the release is where I’ll begin.

First, a definition of the word:

Release
1 allow or enable to escape from confinement; set free
2 allow (something) to move, act, or flow freely
• remove restrictions or obligations from (someone or something) so that they become available for other activity
• remove from a fixed position, allowing something else to move or function
• allow (something) to return to its resting position by ceasing to put pressure on it
3 allow (information) to be generally available

As a lens onto the 5 experience, I’m going to use definitions 1 and 2. The release, in my view, has to do with the ego structure. This Freudian term mostly refers to the cognitive functions that navigate awareness of both internal and external perceptions/realities. There is something (subject) that is aware of thoughts, feelings, and sensations, as well as external stimuli (objects). This something then assesses, evaluates, and responds to those phenomena. Obviously I’m not going to expand too much on the tremendous complexity here—the grand theorists have gifted us so much already—but basically the ego structure somewhat encompasses or describes the building blocks of self-identification or a sense of self.

What is being released? Or, what is something being released from or of? Is it the ego structure itself that is being released? Or is it that which the structure houses/hosts? If one could describe what the structure is made up of, it could be surmised if that material could be released. Or, if it is found that the structure is housing something, it could be noted that that something is what is released from the structure. Let’s take the time to consider each of these two possibilities.

Consideration 1: The ego structure (itself)
If it is the ego structure itself that is being released, then, following the definitions above, it suggests that it is the structure that has been confined or held in a fixed position by yet something else. If I were to use Freudian terms again, it would perhaps be the superego that confines the ego via the former’s restrictions and obligations (let’s say, in part, internalised societal norms and moral values). Following this reasoning, releasing the ego structure would require the removal of the superego (or whatever encompasses it).

If a structure is being built, the building is made up of material, the bricks and mortar (what the material is made up is discussed elsewhere). For the construction of that building, often scaffolding is required (the foundation will be discussed elsewhere). In the above view, the building is the ego structure and the scaffolding is (at least in part) the superego. When the scaffolding is removed, the building stands on its own. But when the building is removed, then what is left? That is the subject on its own.

Consideration 2: Subject matter
If it is what the ego structure houses (subject) that is being released, this suggests that it is the structure that is the confinement from which the subject escapes. In this view, it is the subject that is set free, returned, or able to move and flow freely. Following this reasoning, releasing the subject would require the removal of the ego structure.

Using the analogy of a building again: the building gives shape to what was intangible. Prior to the building, there was nothing. Just air or space. Inside the building, there is still air. However, the space has been compartmentalized; there are rooms, ducts, stairwells, elevator shafts, etc. With the structure that was constructed, what was once nonphysical is given a form. It is that form that we see/identify and can be given a name: a building, a construct. Take away the construct (object), and there is left open space (subject) which was always there.

Taking into account these two considerations above, I tend to think that the latter is the most likely scenario. In that consideration, it’s not the ego structure that is released from what confines it, it is the ego structure that confines what is ultimately to be released. Certainly, the ego structure can be released from its confines. When that happens, this is where the stage of consciousness goes from subject-objects to subject-object to pure subject-no object. The releasing occurs in stages or intervals. This indicates a continuum of sorts. Along this continuum the subject is incrementally denuded of its association with object(s) until, perhaps finally, the subject is even divested of itself. According to the Temple of Awakening Divinity (T.O.A.D.), where the term originated, a full release refers to “a complete ‘ego dissolution’ experience.” Whether or not the action of the release is experienced as a dissolution would be material for another text. For our purposes here, the short definition of the full release (by the T.O.A.D.) is that the dissolution is complete.
Which brings us to examine a synonym of complete, the other word in the term:

Full
1 containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space
2 [attributive] not lacking or omitting anything; complete

Even in the literal definition above, parts of my mind sneakily try to find a way to escape the absolutist words such as no empty space and complete. Does no really or always mean none? Does complete mean 100%? Who wrote that definition anyway? There’s a part of mind that wants to find some wiggle room: “it can’t be so absolute, so delineated, can it?” And yet, when I turn to the felt-memory of my peak experiences of 5-MeO-DMT, it seems to be just that: absolute. If the subject has been fully released from its association with object, it’s not relative anymore. There would be nothing for it to be relative to.

Semantics, right? Effing the ineffable is difficult to do! I find that the space between my felt-experience and the words I could use to describe that felt-experience is mediated well with metaphors and analogies. Here’s one:

Soaking in the fullness

Imagine an immersion in water. If I walk into a river and stand there with the water up to my waste, I might say that I’m wet. That’s true; I feel wetness. But, I’m not completely wet. In fact, I’m half dry. If I go a little further, maybe up to my neck, I’m certainly more wet; most of my body is in the water, under the surface. However, only if all of my body is completely under the surface can I say that I am immersed in the water. Once below the surface—the demarcation between air and water—I am completely wet. Saturated. There is no part of me that is not in the water. I am completely—fully—submerged in the other element. Prior to the immersion, I was partly wet; once immersed, I am completely wet. There is a point at which the transition from being dry to being wet is total.

So, where were we? What is the point? What’s my position?

Circles, waves, lines, and points: super-positioning the self

Horizon
1 the line at which the Earth’s surface and the sky appear to meet
2 the limit of a person’s knowledge, experience, or interest

Threshold
2 the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result, or condition to occur or be manifested:
– the maximum level of radiation or a concentration of a substance considered to be acceptable or safe

I have come to recognise a full release by acknowledging a threshold or a horizon. A horizon is a line beyond which, at the moment of seeing/approaching it, there is not perception nor direct experience. In other words, before that line there is direct experience. The experiencer (subject) has awareness of experience (object)—even if it’s an experience of itself without any object. Beyond that line is the unknown. Once the horizon is transcended, what was once unknown becomes known. Knowing, in this sense, is some sort of felt-sense, since the knower has to be extinguished in order for the final horizon—the last veil—to be breached. That final horizon, in the diagram below, is the vertical line on the left-hand side that separates what is described as I-I and Beyond-I

In the diagram (created by Bentinho Massaro), there are vertical lines that delineate the changes in subject-object relationships. There are also other lines that form circles and waves. While looking at it, if you allow your attention to flow from left to right, it can be seen that what is unconfined and infinite becomes channeled/funnelled into more and more defined shapes until finally closed circles. If our attention goes from right to left, it can be seen that what was once encircled and defined becomes open and exposed/free. The lines represent horizons.

If the diagram is looked at through the lens of an experience with 5, I can see it as a cartography of the flow of identity consciousness. The sense of self in the circles on the right breaches horizons leftward through a continuum of transformations made possible by a release. If you trace a finger from the human figure towards the torus or the word “infinity”, the pathway encounters those lines. Each line that your finger encounters needs to be crossed in order to advance. The lines are horizons that need to be surpassed, transcended, penetrated in order to advance. At the same time, those lines need to break, give way, dissolve, or somehow be removed in order for what was inside to be released.

So, along the way, from right to left, there are releases. And the path unfolds until there is a final threshold. In the diagram, the final threshold is the vertical line that delineates the path (on the right side of it) where the subject is present, and the sheer openness (on the left side of it) where the subject is no longer present (more on the torus in another post). Left of that line: beyond I, the One, the Absolute, Infinity, the beyondness, the foreverness, where there is no subject—which is beyond experiencing. Right of that line, a once-confined Beingness has been released from all the lines that represent limitations and frontiers. The release is full. No line or circle can limit or hold, in a fixed position, the subject.

No object.
No s/Self.
No experiencing.

Each line that is transcended is a release of what was in that very first circle.
Each line that dissolves releases that which it once defined.

Unpacking the range of experiences possible throughout the continuum of release is a task that is much more than this short text can tackle. However, I feel it important to at least highlight the release that brings the subjective position into the timeless, self-experiencing zone on the diagram. Seen here—the I-I relationship—the release of the subject from its association with object is indeed complete; the circle is opened up and all foundation (substratum) becomes absent. The experience of the Unmanifest Self (which is pure awareness) is noteworthy because this is, in my opinion, the report of feeling at one with All. At this position, “I” only experiences “I”. And “I” is All that which “preceded” it, including creation and that which is manifested in collaboration (debatable) with the experiencer. The release required to find oneSelf in the zone of Awareness is an important one. However, since there is yet another threshold (entering into the infinite and toroidal Beyond-I), it is not full.

There are releases along the way; the ego dissolves to various extents. All of these events are valuable and (relatively) mystical and they can all be experienced with 5. Yet the peak experience available with 5 is identifiable by the absence of anything to identify—including oneSelf. If, with an experience with 5, there is an object of experience identified (a thought, an emotion, a sensation, or even a perception), this is either pre- or post- full release (a peri-samadhic state).

My opinion may be considered absolute in some circles but, at some point, one has to draw the full line.