One of my... errrr.... "hobbies" is to explore many different states of consciousness. Altered states can be achieved by a variety of different methods. The most common method is sleeping (especially REM sleep). Other methods I've tried include Vipassana meditation (although other forms can certainly work as well, including ecstatic prayer), astral projection, and different types of drugs. One method I haven't tried, but would like to, is a sensory deprivation tank. Other, milder means of inducing an altered state include listening carefully to certain types of music, staring at certain types of artwork (often something involving repetitive patterns), and dancing oneself into a trance.
What fascinates me, among many other things, is how different each of these states of consciousness is, and how reality is perceived in those states. We grow up perhaps thinking that our normal waking state gives us a reasonable representation of "reality." But... all it takes is a slight change in brain wave patterns (i.e. from alpha waves to theta waves), perhaps some mild changes in the balance of neurotransmitters... and lo and behold, our perception of reality is drastically changed. We commonly assume that our extremely tenuous "normal" state of brain chemistry is what is needed to maintain our "correct" perception of reality. But I ask, why do we make this assumption? How do we really KNOW that what we dream is a figment of our minds? How do we KNOW that the schizophrenic isn't hearing something real on some plane of existence? After all, quantum physicists are contemplating the possibility of multiple dimensions. Perhaps altered states of consciousness are all ways of accessing these dimensions?
But we don't even have to go that far. Here is a simpler example. Just imagine someone who is colour-blind. I have an acquaintance who is completely colour-blind (i.e. sees everything in grayscale, I guess!)... what does this really mean? Is our (colour-seeing) world the real one? What about his? Is it any "less" real, because he doesn't see the colours the same way we do? The ability to see colours is simply the ability to translate a certain range of the electromagnetic spectrum in a certain way. People have minor differences in the way they translate this spectrum. Animals have more differences. Is any one way to perceive the electromagnetic spectrum - which has no inherent "colour" of its own, it's just our perception - more valid or "real" than any other way?
Going back a few more years... when I was a kid, I was taken to church. For the most part, I found church extremely boring. The sermons were boring, praying was boring. There was a lot of standing up and sitting down. The only tastes of spirituality I felt were on those rare occasions when we all sang some kind of religious song that touched me in some way, or when the priest sang/chanted some of the mass in Latin. Somehow, Latin, and singing/chanting rather than speaking, always felt more spiritual to me than simple speech, in English.
When I grew older, I found ways of feeling Spirit, and God (the Universe) that to me were much more effective than going to church. A few early experiences with astral projection and particularly vivid dreams were hints at what was to come. My first real spiritual experience was brought on by LSD. It changed me permanently; transformed me from a cynical, nihilistic, negative adolescent to a curious, creative human full of wonder and love of life. Chemical means of altering consciousness are of course looked down on by many. However, this attitude is entirely dependent on the culture one is brought up in. Cultures with a tradition of Shamanism, for example, respect and revere certain types of drugs for the enlightening experiences they can produce.
Others may not judge chemical means as "wrong," but may offer the argument that drug-induced experiences aren't "real" since they did not occur "naturally." This used to be something I thought was a valid argument, until I went for my Psychology degree with a very heavy concentration in neuroscience. I also read the books of Oliver Sacks, who is an extremely talented neurologist and writer. I learned about the astoundingly bizarre effects of some types of neurological damage, and how that changes consciousness and perception. Considering the different ways each of us perceives reality, I started wondering if there really was any such thing as an objective reality. I started to believe that all reality is subjective. I realized from my studies and readings something that is obvious to think about now: *every* experience in our minds is influenced by chemistry. All our emotions are effects (or perhaps reflections) of changes in chemistry, just like a drug experience. It is simply a different way of incurring that change. We can alter serotonin levels by taking a drug, or falling in love; what makes one method more valid or "real" than another?
This leads me to the relationship between our brain chemistry and our soul. For many, the two are separate and irreconcilable. Scientists often deny the soul, and spiritual folks ignore science. For me, it took a few years to reconcile, but eventually it clicked. To explain the connection, I borrow the oft-repeated mantra As Above, So Below. Our brain chemistry (below) is a physical, matter-based reflection of what is going on in our soul (above). It is a sort of perpetual feedback loop: what goes on in one, reflects in the other, and vice versa.
I'll probably write more about this topic in the future, as it is one of my favorite things to think about...



