I do have to ask. Do you guys and gals, think all these vergining on the insane comments about immigrants and the like, are intentional? It smacks of the same idea of making Dubya seem incompetent and stupid, just that that has taken unseen levels in regards to Trump as of late.

Cheese!

Who likes cheese?

Then it's a matter of taste?

It gets deeper though.

See, if anyone cares to explore.

And the trap is a gibberish machine. — Arne

Yes, the truth has been spoken.

And is that not a central claim of the original post? — Arne

What is? I'm afraid I'm confused myself.

So, the issue is about fulfilling criteria?

If you start a topic on the hangover philosophy has faced since Descartes, I would gladly post about my own secret remedy. If not then I referenced a very pertinent topic in the OP which hasn't been touched.

Cartesian hangover. — Arne

What's that? Sounds like material for a new topic.

I use the word entity rather than object. — Arne

Hmm, why is that?

Join my more realistic thread, if you want to. Haha.

That's interesting, I haven't come across him before. — unenlightened

Glad you liked it.

But the exposition on wiki is a bit of a dog's breakfast. — unenlightened

I'll try and research some more about him. But, the main gist should be apparent more or less.

It's fun though that you can come up with a psychology at the drop of a hat with a few posited psychic entities, and a couple of broad principles. And then start a school to implement them. — unenlightened

Yeah, haha.

I digress. Thanks for entertaining these musings of sorts.

Well, I'm saying that because you assume that the psychedelic experience will provide, in some cases, the needed shift in perception to fulfill whatever is thought to be the change needed in perception to challenge or change ones view of oneself or place in reality, thus the fallacy.

None of what I say here should be taken as a recommendation for you or anyone else to try psychoactives. each individual has to decide for themselves whether such experiences are for them. That is what is meant by "individualism"; the free determination (as much as is possible, obviously) by the individual of their own experiences. — Janus

Isn't that the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in a nutshell?

Perhaps you would be happier if I was talking about 'possible worlds' and 'modal logic'. Possible worlds are unreal worlds. — unenlightened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasser%27s_choice_theory

That's the part left out of when talking about 'reality therapy'.

Aren't you being a tad alarmist here? — Janus

Perhaps.

That assumes that the natural state, or rather the ordinary state that humans predominantly exemplify, is normal. — Wayfarer

I don't see how you can argue with that.

Certainly, experiences with psychoactive agents can call that sense of normality into question. — Wayfarer

Which has been pontificated and idealized on as far as I'm aware.

But then so too can some forms of asceticism or martial and spiritual disciplines - in fact, that is their aim. — Wayfarer

Yes, but that doesn't entail the rejection of 'base undistoreted reality'.

And that aim is predicated on the state that the 'consensus reality' that many live in, is itself an illusory or sub-optimal state, which becomes self-reinforcing. — Wayfarer

Well, we can poison the well, and say that everything is illusory; but, I don't think that gets us anywhere really.

I would agree that nothing good can ever come from crystal meth or crack cocaine- from what I can ascertain, they have nothing to do with realising visionary states and their use is wholly and solely pernicious and destructive. But not all psychoactive agents are the same - the point of a 'heightened state of awareness' is the realisation that what you have hitherto taken to be real, may not be so concrete after all. — Wayfarer

That realisation, to me, was worth all the risk, and I think it has permanently, and positively, altered my view of life. — Wayfarer

So, then the issue is me-centered again. I've always believed that one can surmount the trappings of one's self and come to a better realization of reality through other means than psychoactive drugs.

in the positive, so I sense there's no use in further discussing it, and besides, I don't want to act as an advocate. — Wayfarer

I guess you can trivialize it down to a matter of prejudices or some such matter; but, I've resented the fact that the counter-culture movement was centered around individualism. Doesn't that detract from the message 'mind-altering-drugs' meant to portray?

That's an awfully careless thing to say though. Nobody tells you that the experience can even be life threatening or even detrimental to your health if you have an underlying psychological issue that is hard to address outside of controlled settings. Why is that?

That's not the point. People who seek to resolve issues through psychadela need therapy and analysis instead of overwhelming and possibly frightening experiences. So, it kind of renders the whole point of taking them as moot, as if you don't have any issues then why take them at all?

Hence I think guided therapy with using them as a tool/means instead of some grand end is the proper attitude to adopt in regards to their.potential use.

No, I'm trying to delineate when and which context are best to utilize said drugs from other contexts. So, for example, I'm feeling depressed and think eating some Psilocybin Cubensis might alleviate the depression, so I take the mushroom, but have a harrowing experience of losing control over my thoughts and thinking the police are outside of my home and are waiting to put me in straights, then what has gone wrong here? And, yes this was an actual experience of mine.

Nowadays I just laugh about it. But it took some years for me to recover from it and the concern that I permafried myself.

Has anyone found it yet? — apokrisis

What a strange way to approach reality, don't you think?

I don't think that psychedelics are seen as "cure or panacea" so much as, just in some special contexts, therapeutic aids. — Janus

Right, but what do you mean by 'some special contexts'? I feel as though many people wonder about that too.

Some people might fantasize about psychedelics, to be sure, but not that many i would say. — Janus

Well, yea, because the experience is inherently irrational and pertains to the illogical.

A lot of young meatheads fantasize about getting pissed and "cracking on" to "chicks", or getting the chicks pissed and rooting them,for example, but that is no reason to condemn alcohol tout court. — Janus

I haven't condemned psychedelics per se, so don't get the wrong idea. I'm just against people advocating their use in what you call 'special contexts'.

Again to connect with this thread, it was constructing the conceptual framework within which that kind of perceptual state would make complete sense. — apokrisis

OK, so we're talking about profound spiritual experiences. Are we at the limits of what language and reason can go about in formalizing and making sense of such experiences? They seem nonsensical on face value.

No different from going to church. Or an art gallery. In some general way, culture does want to frame our perceptual experience so that it has proper social meaning. — apokrisis

What do you mean by qualifying an experience as 'proper'?

Even maths and philosophy are "drugs" in this sense. We are meant to be initiated into their mysteries by shaman guides and see the world through different eyes as a result. — apokrisis

Not that same kind of shamans advocating drug use, surely?

You become wise or clear-minded by picking your influences carefully, not by altering your neurobiology or accessing a different plane of being. — apokrisis

Agreed. So, there's no escaping reality then.

@Arne

All will be revealed in due time.

You are indulging in gross generalizations! — Janus

I think it goes both ways though. One sees these mind altering drugs as some cure or panacea for some issue, and the fantasy and wishful thinking begins. It's like the square root of the placebo effect.

I'm really glad you made it through those terrible ordeals, Tiff. Sounds horrible. But, progress has been made, yay!

He said that I have a loose enough grip (which is a plus in western pleasure horse back riding) on reality, that he just wouldn't do it if I could stay away from it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm in the same boat. No point in breaking yourself down, and them reassembling yourself if there's no need to, yea?

As a recovering meth addict with this Sunday marking my 10nth year anniversary of my first Full Day of an Opiate free life, I can only speak from my own withdrawal experiences, which proves there is always a down for every up. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I can relate. Though, my tendencies were always guided with the noble ideal of performing better at college due to treating ADD-PI, until things spiraled out of control.

The first signs of life that my Dopamine receptors were needed to function again as they had been supplemented for 5 years was fucking amazing! I broke down crying knowing that I had walked through the worst of the storm and saw the tinyist light a bit further ahead and that kept me going. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

:up:

He openly said he didn't think my psyche would respoond if I were to.have another pregnancy. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeah, women are special. It's a miracle of life; but, can be too much for some minds.

Medical professionals might not be intimately acquainted with our individual emotional ups and downs, and when to have a beer, a smoke, or a toke is probably better decided by ourselves so long as over-use isn't an issue. — VagabondSpectre

Then they are poor medical professional, at that. That's why I always would ask for a second or third opinion.

Most people aren't so cynical about it I reckon. — VagabondSpectre

Or not cynical enough?

Wanting a fancy car or romantic gratification might be partially illusion-infused drives, but we still enjoy achieving them profusely. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, it's the placebo effect manifest in reality. Quite a phenomenon if you ask me.

Enduring greater stress to achieve these ends with the crutch of substance seems to be in our nature, else we might have been content in a more primitive state. — VagabondSpectre

Then, you open up the can of worms, that we are really weak if we need that crutch. I have always felt impotent whenever I have indulged in stimulants to treat my ADD.

I think that regular periods of chemically assisted relaxation or pleasure can make an otherwise stressed mind more robust by giving it reprieve. Certainly some substances in some dosages can damage minds, and predicting the effects of harder drugs on individuals can be difficult (there is some risk). When it comes to things like THC, nicotine, caffine and alcohol it's not so dangerous. People who do physically demanding labour seem to like how alcohol relaxes their body; people who do mentally demanding labour seem to enjoy how nicotine relaxes their mind; people who do work which requires consistent or extreme focus seem to enjoy caffeine, and people who smoke THC seem to enjoy it for it's own sake (or some combination of the aforementioned effects). — VagabondSpectre

I guess we can reduce the issue to a matter of taste. But, nobody gives you informed consent that what you may be doing is actually bad for your health or mental stability. It all smacks of some wishful thinking, and some such matters.

I think that psychoactive substances when properly consumed can make individuals more robust, some more than others, weak and strong alike — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, this is interesting. College students are always looking to get an edge on their peers at college through the consumption of various stimulants. Just one manifestation of the above sentiment.

Hippies were less about drugs as they were about peace, free love, and like, cool ideas, man. — VagabondSpectre

I wish I knew a Hippie that didn't have to indulge in drugs to propound such noble goals. Did they sabotage themselves/their message in some sense?

It's about a broader underlying reliance on consuming substances and performing rituals which psychoactively impact and regulate our minds, and that we have naturally done so for thousands of years. — VagabondSpectre

Not everyone, some yes.

Apparently our biology is such that we cannot stand to face the world straight and sober 100% of the time, and those who pretend to do so are usually those who derive the most emotion and happiness from non-substance psychoactive rituals (prayer, prostration, worship, exercise, competition, sex, poetry, prose, music, hippy drum circles, political rallies, etc...). — VagabondSpectre

Sleep is enough of a trip for me, every night. I heard DMT levels rise during REM sleep or something like that.

Where we get our fixes, how, and how much, are matters which fluctuate with the times, that we inexorably get our fix, however, does not. — VagabondSpectre

Depressing, really.

I'm not too sure if it's a slippery slope argument or a no true Scotsman fallacy. Anyway, I'm gonna stop spamming this thread.

If you want to continue the casual conversation, I think you'd be interested in this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3597/about-mind-altering-drugs

Perhaps the real visions of others, precisely because you cannot share them, appear to you as "idealized"! — Janus

Yeah, that's a slippery slope there...

I don't know. I think so. It's just that there's too much hype around the idea. Set and setting I guess.

I try and be pragmatic. I value the highest 'base reality' or reality that is undistorted, clear, and lucid as much as possible. I also value the consistency, which psychedelics strongly disrupt. I just think that the aura and lure of drugs are overrated. I don't find any sort of rituals to be of any actual significance to anyone apart to some idealized vision, which I don't share. I'm glad our shamans of the past have become more strict and logical instead of metaphysical and mystical.

Nothing. — Wayfarer

So, drugs we're just another 'fad' of the 60's, so to speak?

It's true that addiction and hedonism are destructive behaviours, but there's also a sense in which society taboos such substance because it calls the consensus reality into question. — Wayfarer

Well, yes, the aberration of reality or perversion of it though psychoactive drugs is not natural. Therefore, society knows better, I think.

Humans have been self-medicating since time immemorial... — VagabondSpectre

True, though I don't know if it has actually changed is in any manner of form.

Since we're all so dependent on regulating our minds by constantly self-administering substances which affect how and what we think and do, I can only imagine that it is of net benefit rather than a net detriment. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, being pragmatic, psychoactive substances have their use; but, the point is that it has to be directed of governed (medical professionals, etc.) by someone who has figured out what benefit it actually has.

I'm forced to imagine that regular inebriation can somehow bring stability or fortitude to an individual mind: perhaps inebriation helps to destroy malformed or weak or detrimental beliefs and models/understandings which then makes minds subsequently more robust; perhaps it simply endows us the ability to manage arbitrarily large amounts of stress, allowing us to achieve more. — VagabondSpectre

Funny that you say that, because most people realize that achievement is an illusory concept imposed by society to maintain it. So, you're faced with a dilemma, in some sense.

There's too much stress and confusion in the universe to endure and reconcile it all, which is why the euphoria of inebriation seems to be requisite. — VagabondSpectre

So, drugs are for the weak minded? I'm pretty sure psychoactive drugs are only for the strong minded.

I'm definitely not after enlightenment when I smoke tobacco or marijuana, but I am after some kind of psychoactive alteration that either makes thought easier, more interesting, or more enjoyable. — VagabondSpectre

So, hedonism?

To condense this down to a brief evolutionary perspective, individuals who regulate their minds with psychoactive stimulation (achieving relaxation and perhaps greater "awareness") can endure greater hardship and thus be more reproductively successful, which is why nearly all humans today do so. — VagabondSpectre

I don't know if that's true. If it we're then why did the all hippies die out or recede into irrelevancy?

But my perspective on them was, it wasn’t simply about cheap thrills and the desire for a rush, but about heightened awareness. — Wayfarer

The beatniks became hippies, the hippies became yippies, and then the yippies became staunch neoliberals or yuppies. What does that say about 'heightened awareness'?

I mean, highly addictive drugs like amphetamine, methylphenidate, and methamphetamine are available through prescription in the US; but, it's punishable by law to posses non-addictive (comparatively) Cannabis or MDMA or LSD. Why?

Wat. — Ying

Yeah, why is cannabis illegal or other Schedule I drugs in that category or status, at least here in the US?

So, I'm going to point out the elephant in the room and ask to you or anyone else, why has these ethnogenic rituals been outlawed by so many governments and societies instead of others given how profound and important they are to some?

I understand what you're saying; but, I don't like where this is going. If everything we do is to satisfy psychological and physiological needs, then this reduces everything to egotism of sorts, and hence the self-serving solipsism which I keep on bringing up.

Or, and do consider it, we could say that we can manage to function without a car. The car has no fantasy, it merely functions or does not function, just as the desert has no fantasy and no needs of its own. — unenlightened

I'm still not getting your point here. I'm quite confused why are you conflating inanimate objects with animate ones.

I need me to live, therefore I need me to have water. Do you see how this is a different sort of thing? — unenlightened

They are one and the same.

Externally, I don't need water, I can perfectly well die just as a car can run out of petrol and simply stop running. — unenlightened

Again, that solipsism.

There are necessary (needed) conditions for life but life is not necessary for anything things are necessary to life. — unenlightened

OK, well none of that follows. If I identify my needs apart from wants, I think that's a better way of treating life, and knowing the limits of what is attainable or not instead of living in some fantasy world of some sort.

What is needed for anything is a matter of fact, of limiting conditions. — unenlightened

Which, I place the emphasis on, as I hope anyone else does.