Void Mantra

Pre-ordered.

Definitely look forward to this!

This needs a bump. Pure crack!

Good stuff!

Glad to see 36 mentionned here! He's one of the best ambient electronic artist out there. His EP Sine Dust might just be my favourite EP ever.

I'm all in for this! We need a sticky though, otherwise the topic will get lost in no time.

I'm agnostic; nothing from a 1st person perspective leads me to conclude with absolute certainty that there's such a thing as a great architect behind this madness we call reality. On the other hand, scientific materialism's narrative that the universe is the result of some random cosmic accident is no more convincing to me than the "big Daddy in the sky" tale. It's lame and it's lazy. Then you have the mystics, through the ages and across all cultures, sharing strikingly similar insights. Coincidence? I'll leave that open, we are not gonna resolve this one on psynews, believe me.

Damn you psytones, WHY, WHY did you have to bump this one up? Man I swear these conversations will ruin my life; such a vast and complex topic, so little time. Give me some time please, I might give it a shot and post a reply. One thing though, your questions are all over the place. I suggest you begin with a single question and I'll answer it the best I can. Let's see if we can start from there and elaborate thereafter.

Got it. I'm postponing the final compilation to the end of April.

No clear winner indeed. It's all over the place really. Might wait a little bit to gather more votes, what do you think?

They released one album last year. Totally went under the radar.

They do. They can buy a single bubblegum pack per 1000 streams.

Here's some real men's music for ya! * "If you're not into Metal - you are not my friend!" -Joey DeMaio Where's your U-Recken now?

Yes, surprising indeed! Didn't know this Deviant Electronics band, good find!

Thanks everyone for the great participation so far! Keep 'em coming guys! thanosp, stop that silly debate on science and get your ass over here!!

Science doesn't, but "scientists" definitely do...and by doing so they've stopped being scientists. Science certainly is about truth as much as religion is, one simply has yet to succeed in this project while the other claims it has. I've yet to meet someone who observed the big bang as some cosmic accident. Someone once said that religion is bad science; if I'm explaning the manifested world as some random cosmic accident, am I doing religion or science? The correct scientific answer to this is "we don't know". Some religions stop being scientific when they claim to know. When their evidence is dismissive of science and only rely on faith, they are not only dangerous but batshit delusional. My problem is when one throw all religions in the same basket and end-up with a flat-land perspective where any altitude or elevation is denied. Clearly you don't think that Christianity (as it is commonly thought and practiced today) is the equivalent of Dzogchen. Many scientists are so militant when it comes to the word "God" that their agenda is no longer to approach this incredibly complex question with doubt and openess but to systematically prove that ANY person subscribing to a worldview that includes Providence is wrong. As of today, science can't prove nor deny God. One way or another, saying otherwise is just being dishonest. Well, best of luck with that. Problem is the scientific community has been saying this for decades now. And no, they don't have a pretty good idea on that. I've watched hundreds of hours of podcasts with well known scientists and they don't have a clue on what consciousness actually is; they (most of them) have no problems to acknowledge this. Again, that's far from the whole picture of religions. You're talking of exoteric, pre-rational religions, which are by default highly dogmatic. That isn't true of ALL religions. Some religions put an extraordinary emphasis on methodology and subjective exploration. In that sense, they are experimental to the core. They just look through the lens of the 1st person perspective where modern science do from a 3rd person. Both holds as much scientific value as the other, they just explore a different territory. Saying that the understanding of ALL religions is zero is just a baseless statement. What evidence do you have to say that Siddhartha Gautama had zero understanding whatsoever? Wait, didn't you just said that science has no beliefs? Anyway, if they're truly done with the reductionist point of view, great I say! They do, but in spiritual terms. Reminds me of a fallacy I've seen numerous times in regard to God and darwinists. The argument goes as follow: "When it comes to the survival of our specie, it is useful to believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist." Pure fallacy right there. Incoherent as saying I can hallucinate a chair therefore all chairs are illusory. I'm not saying that it's particularly your case, but it certainly is a recurrent argument among atheists. Anyway, we might appear in total disagreement but I genuinely think it's not really the case. When it comes to words like "religion" and "God" there's such a tremendous historical and cultural baggage to it that it's hard to convey exactly what we mean by those words. Most of organized religions cause a colossal amount of suffering to humanity and rightfully deverve every bit of criticism on your end. No question here. I'm just pointing out that there's more to it. On a side note, I'm really under the impression that I'm debating an atheist here. What are your reasons for not being one? Anyway, thanks for having this talk with me. I greatly appreciate your input on this subject!

Yes, they're releasing a split lp with the death metal band Atheist later this year, check it out. Broadly speaking, the word "spiritual" refer to something immaterial. a simple google search on its etymology clearly show this. It just seems to me that some scientists just throw the word "spirit" in an attempt convey what they can't explain in materialist, mechanistic terms yet still fervently stick to their narrow, reductionist (everything is made of things) assumptions. My point is, if you want to stick to your guns in that department, fine but leave spirit out of the equation. Otherwise, you're doing a performative contraction. As far as I'm concerned, "awe" is indeed a much more appropriate word in this context. What's even more curious to me is how some "scientists" believe that you can have order out of pure chaos or pure accident (atoms banging each other). Is it really more reasonable to believe in this "ops" theory than the one proposed by religions? I think not. Again, you're refering to pre-rational/mythic-literal religions; that's far from the whole story. But yes, if it can't pass the test of modernity and its scientific advances, yes I'm you with, it should be dismissed. However, we have to acknowledge that science, as of today, have quite many blind spots and is FAR from being in a position where it can answer some of the most important questions: What is consciousness? What is life and how is it created? What created the evolution? What came before the big bang? etc. My point is, we HAVE to be scientific, but also be humble about the fact that science's understanding of the universe is (very) limited. Otherwise, we might have much more in common with dogmatic religions than we'd like to think. Boy, what was the topic about again?

Are you familiar with Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens? I'm asking because you really sound like them. Now, let's have a look at what spirituality means according to wikipedia: "There is no single, widely agreed definition of spirituality.[11][12][note 1] Surveys of the definition of the term, as used in scholarly research, show a broad range of definitions[10] ranging from uni-dimensional definitions such as a personal belief in a supernatural realm[5] to broader concepts such as a quest for an ultimate/sacred meaning,[7] transcending the base/material aspects of life, and/or a sense of awe/wonderment and reverence toward the universe." It seems, one way or another, that "spiritual" people do not deny the sacredness of their worldview, hence my suspicions when the agnostics (and the atheits for that matter) refer themselves as spiritual. I get the point that spirituality is not dogmatic, more experimental, more inclusive but there's still this notion of the "sacred" intrinsically linked to their beliefs (which is certainly true for all spiritual persons I know of, bar none). Some atheists (new atheism movement) would acknowledge some experiences as "spiritual" which is kind of wacky coming from a stricly materialist, deterministic viewpoint (which is absolutely what they stand for). Indeed, if the whole experience of listening to Bach can be explained in terms of synapses firing, neural pathways and dopamine, qualifying this kind of experience as "spiritual" is just preposterous. Anyway, enough of my ramblings. On a side note, have you ever heard of Ken Wilber's work? I highly, highly recommend his new book "The Religion of Tomorrow". Wilber makes a distinction between mythic-literal religions (which are those you loathe, and for good reasons) and the trans-rational ones embodied by some the mystics of the great traditions (i.e. Zen, Dzogchen Buddhism and Vedanta). I know more and more scientists are interested in those, especially since the rise of mindfulness meditation. It's a dense, thick book (more than 800 pages), but it's well worth the time and investment, especially so for the agnostics out there!

I'm sorry for your mom man. My thoughts are with you... Agnostic but spiritual? Can you explain this?

Tell me about it. 20 euros for a (double) digital album!?? Cute. Here's the album for a reasonable price: https://beatspace-geomagnetic.bandcamp.com/album/call-of-goa-v3-new-horizons

B.R.U.T Bow down bitches.

Uptempo 1. V/A - 604 Syndroms [Mamomam] 2. V/A - Goa Trance Legacy 3 [Spacedock] 3. V/A - Dimensional Gateway 4 [Neogoa] 4. V/A - Dimensional Gateway 5 [Neogoa] 5. V/A - BGF Chronicles [Neogoa] 6. Morphic Resonance - Trip to the Stars [DAT] 7. JaraLuca - Fata Morgana [Goa Madness] 8. Hypnoxock - Eurythmia [Goa Madness] 9. V/A - Goa Trance Legacy 2 [Spacedock] 10. K.O.B. - Identiy Mash [Suntrip] It's pretty clear to me that 2017 was all about V/A. Downtempo 1. Mindsphere - Mindream [Suntrip] 2. Entheogenic - Dreamtime Physics [s/r] 3. Carbon Based Lifeforms - Derelicts [Blood Music] 4. Shpongle - Codex VI [s/r]

These "best of" have been an invaluable source of recommendations when it comes to psytrance. I just refuse to let it die For whatever reasons, it seems we're not getting the 2017 one...until now. Please cast your vote, in order from best to worst, in these two categories: Uptempo and Downtempo. Also, please name a max. of 10 albums for each. First album on your list will get 10 points, second will get 9...and so on. I'll compile the results by the end of (March) April. Of course, the higher the participation, the better! Also, it would be great if you mods could pin this one Update: Results will be compiled by the end of April instead of March to gather a maxium of votes.