saw angels, extraterrestrials, then I called them guides and finally I called them ECCO and it’s totally impersonal. It’s way beyond what people can understand except in a ketamine or LSD state. Then they tell you, well we’re at a low level, there are influences above us. It would be nice to meet these entities that experience these various states. They won’t take human form, though; it’s a waste of their time. And once I joined them and realized that that’s where I came from and that I had gotten bored and become human in order to have some different experiences with a smaller intelligence. It’s like becoming a cat or something, to find out what’s going on with the cat.
RMN: I feel that my dog, Safety, might have done that very thing. She’s more human than many people I know.
JOHN: Well a dog finally convinced me of this, that there are levels that these entities choose to be, dolphins or whatever. When I experienced level +3 (refer to The Center of The Cyclone), I was part of a huge consciousness that was creating from the void. It was taking energy and creating a form, life and so on. It wasn’t me. My ego afterwards wanted it to be me but of course it wasn’t.
DJB: Do you have a hard time bringing information back?
JOHN: Oh, of course. It isn’t hard to bring it back, it just doesn’t come back. It’s in you, though; ECCO put me straight on that. They said, “Well, everything that’s happened is stored and when it’s important that you know it, you’ll know it.”
RMN: When you’re ready for it.
DJB: Bringing information back from my ketamine experiences is a real struggle for me.
JOHN: You’ve got to be more passive. If you struggle, then all you’ll see is your struggle. It’s like trying to do something instead of doing it.
DJB: Let me ask you John, how do you, or do you, distinguish between mind and body, spirit and matter’!
JOHN: Those are all explanatory principles.
DJB: How about in terms of descriptive principles. How would you describe the difference between them?
JOHN: Naming such things is a dichotomy. The only dichotomies are in language and in the eye of the observer. Until you can describe the system of mathematical continuous process, or stepless process, then you aren’t really saying anything. As I keep saying in every workshop I give, “For the rest of this week you are going to hear a lot of stuff and all of it is bullshit.” You know why? Because language itself is bullshit. It’s a way of spending your time without experience or experiment.
DJB: But what other alternative do we have besides language for communication?
JOHN: Well, if you don’t know, I can’t explain it to you. No, I told you about it; on the ketamine experiences you’re going through reality experiencer; and they’re experimenting on you and you’re experimenting and there’s no way that language has anything to do with this. So what’s happening is so fast and continuous that you don’t have a chance of describing it.
DJB: But don’t you think it’s important that people write books and map out the territory?
JOHN: Only if they tell you, “There’s a territory over there. Go see it.” That’s all.
DJB: What do you think of the notion that Terence McKenna talks about a lot, that language actually creates reality?
JOHN: No, it doesn’t. Language creates reality? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
RMN: Maybe he means that language creates our experience of reality, because it programs us to think in certain ways.
JOHN: The experience in the tank, for example, is: a continuous paragraphic process and that’s true of life in general. You can’t describe me, for instance, you can’t even remember me in your video memory, right?
RMN: I can’t remember you? I haven’t forgotten you yet.
JOHN: No, no. That’s a simulation. You haven’t forgotten your simulation of this, whatever ii is. See, I can’t describe me and I can’t describe you.
RMN: Right, I see that. But if somebody were to ask me about you later on, the language I used to recall and describe you then would effect how I re-experienced you.
JOHN: My book The Simulations of God: The Science of Belief, explains all of this.
DJB: Explains? Isn’t that the notorious explanatory principle creeping in again?
JOHN: All we do is construct simulations. I construct the simulation of you, for instance, and I turn this into words. But that