> which is apparently to not exist as such.

You're once again mischaracterizing the actual claim, and in a way that suggests you not only disagree with it, but feel a need to mock it. Please don't do that.

Just because you don't like the point doesn't mean I am mocking anyone - it's a legitimate point. What do you think the dissolvement of the self entails? No Self! You literally cease to feel like you exist independently of the rest of reality. You may be new to this kind of thinking, but some of us have explored this thought space fairly exhaustively. And it's not your role to come onto HackerNews, declare people as mocking others, and to ask them in a parental tone to not do that. If anyone does that, it's dang (which I still don't appreciate, but hey, it's his job, at least. It's not your job).

There is a categorical difference between "diminishment" and "dissolvement" [sic]. You keep asserting that the ur-comment's point is the removal of a "self". We're suggesting, instead, that there's value in a lessening of it (a notion which is actually rather well supported, if you take "self" to mean some of the egoic structures that people carry around, but which end up being more of a hindrance to a richer, more connected and fulfilling experience of life, as I do), to which you respond with, "Yeah, but why would you want to be a rock?" or, "You don't even want to exist!" You're missing the point, and your tone reads as disdainful and dismissive.

Even in this very comment: "You may be new to this kind of thinking, but some of us have explored this thought space fairly exhaustively." I studied philosophy of mind in university, which subsumed cognitive science, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and more. I've also explored this question from the spiritual side, having spent time in Buddhist temples in India, Nepal, Thailand, and Tibet, as well as here in the US — and with shamans in the Amazon, where I've taken a profound amount of psychedelics. I'd ask you kindly to refrain from making assertions about what other people know or understand on the basis of a few sentences exchanged on a textual forum. It's rude, and it's often factually wrong.

On that point: no, I'm not 'dang. But I do hang out here rather a bit, and I do want this to be a place where discourse is civil and substantive. 'dang has a sometimes terribly thankless job, and he gets a lot of flak for it — including, as above, from you. Given all of that, I think the community could do a better job of self-policing.

He's free — encouraged, even — to come along and ask me to stop, or tell me I'm out of line, in general, or in specific, and I'll defer. Until then, this is my community too, and as a member in what appears to be good standing, I have a say in the tone of the place, and I'm going to use it.

Yes, it is a removal / diminishment / dissolvement / insert-word-here of the self, depending on the kind and amount that you do. That's what the article talks about, and that's what psychedelics do in general. And citing the OP:

"can psychedelics have lasting effects." (followed up by claiming that these lasting effects are positive)

You do not want the effect of the psychedelic to last, because you cease to exist as such when it's in action, and that's what I was replying to. It was followed up by a religious quote, and you may not be aware of this, but in religions such as Buddhism losing the self is considered to be enlightenment. Assuming this is a "permanent positive change" is extremely controversial, especially from a western perspective, and certainly from a psychological perspective. Psychedelics are dangerous because the default network may not reform.

Regarding your other comments, what you are doing is known as "junior modding" on the internet, and is generally frowned upon. Have a nice day.