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.

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.

@Posty McPostface
Your core on this seems a lot more stable than mine. :heart:

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

Some people might fantasize about psychedelics, to be sure, but not that many i would say. There will always be a limited number of people who fantasize about almost anything you can imagine, so psychedelics are not a special case. 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.

So, the process of taking drugs themselves has a attained or undergone ritualization, which is a sort of unrealistic idealization of their use? Hence, the false lure that they have attained? — Posty McPostface

I would say that the use of drugs in our time has been de-ritualized, compared to what the Greeks were doing at Eleusis.

The "Mysteries" at Eleusis was celebrated over a few days. We don't know what all they did in their rituals, but one of the things they did was enter a dark underground chamber and stay there for a while. This may have been the place of drug taking. Why? Because Persephone had been kidnapped by the god of the underworld, Hades, and taken to his dark kingdom (Persephone was very attractive, after all). Her mother, Demeter was grief stricken and caused a great drought, which would have eventually devastated the land AND ended the practice of sacrificing food to the gods. Demeter also went into the underworld looking for her daughter. The time periods they were there correspond to the Mediterranean agricultural seasons of 8/4 months.

This was important stuff having to do with agriculture, worship of the gods (who were dependent on humans for sacrificial food) and the underworld. Plus, people returned to Eleusis for second visits (thereby becoming a bit privileged).

In Christianity, people didn't start sharing bread and wine at church as an intermission snack. They ate the food as a commemoration of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death -- so central to the whole Christian structure of meaning. The situation at eleusis was similar.

So, the lady in the lower right is either holding a tray of snacks or a tray of the drugs to be consumed. Some of the well-heeled worshippers are carrying torches.

Not, the same kind of morning ritual of making coffee, taking a shower, and pumping yourself up with positive feedback or thoughts?

Pumping one's self up in the morning with positive sounding non-inferential statements is disgusting.

For some of us making and drinking coffee in the morning is more sacred and sustaining than the Eucharist, and the morning shower is a daily remission of filth and dirt.

Psilocybin is quite an interesting drug too due to its potential utility for treating depression, OCD, and phobias. — Posty McPostface

I have considered trying mushrooms for this reason and also obviously curiosity. Though I'm a little iffy about the loss of "control" in a psychoactive experience. I think I might be more sensitive to "drugs" than normal, so even weed can give me a bad time if I have too much or am in the wrong situation. No big deal though. I smoke weed occasionally and I do it because it's a (probably, hopefully?) harmless recreation that makes me laugh and relax.

My epistemological views have shifted to being more skeptical - it is not false to say that everyone is technically "on drugs" when "drugs" are any chemical that influences cognitive function. I'm not really entertaining the notion of absolute relativity. Just a little more flexibility in what counts as veridical perception, or what is justification for belief. When experience is conditioned by things like neurotransmitters, you have to wonder why one experience-chemical correlate is favored over another experience-chemical correlate. In general, though, I see drugs as potentially helpful in a cognitive sense but probably misleading in a spiritual sense.

My opinion on drugs is that while they all have the potential to be abused, they can also be very positive. I think this is a moderate view that is held by most people on the political left. It seems ridiculous to me that marijuana possession is a felony while alcohol isn't. The drug policy of the United States is anti-intellectual and based on fear and racism and is counter-productive to the understanding of drugs. If we had more research on the effects drugs have on people, I think people would be able to make smarter decisions on what they put in their bodies. But dumb programs like DARE just make drugs into a taboo which only makes people, especially adolescents, more tempted to try them.

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'.

It seems simple.

If we need to numb ourselves, that spells some kind of problem. We would want to tackle the cause and not the symptoms.

If we want to enhance our cognitive state, that sounds useful. We would want to understand the causality of that so we can produce the said symptoms. Although there may still be a question about why we think it is such a good thing ... like all the time, in some extreme superhuman way.

So if drugs are being used as a numbing mechanism, that ain't a good thing if it is to avoid an underlying problem being addressed. But then, hey, maybe this idea of being wired - cognitively energised all the time - is bad too as relaxing, chilling out, goofing off, are part of being human too?

However are drugs actually good at producing relaxation. Isn't mediation or exercise way better?

And maybe there is a third thing - social lubrication. People feel very self-conscious and distant from each other. Drugs are a way to blur those interpersonal boundaries. But isn't it better to address the causes of this more than the symptoms? What is it about society and other people - or your own habits - that could be changed to remove the same awkwardness that booze or weed allegedly removes?

So actually, it's all a bit complicated.

But the posts that focus on the social framing of the perils and benefits are more relevant than the ones that talk about personal neurobiology.

Pharmaceutical science sure likes us believing that neurotransmitters are like the volume and contrast knobs on the side of the TV set. Others like the Romantic notion that there is some secret little door in our heads that opens into another more splendid world.

But drugs are really crude and rely on their social framing to produce most of any effect.

Inject some adrenaline and the jolt to your sympathetic nervous system will be read as excited or irritating depending on the context. You are suddenly aroused. Now you have to work out whether that is to get you busy in a good or bad way because of what is happening in the world around you.

Personally I have found that it is the boringly obvious stuff - hard exercise, quality sleep, clean diet - that does the most you can do for your biology. Then you have to deal with the social side of life the best way you can. You have to strike some balance of engagement and detachment that results in a long-term strategic sense of growth and flourishing.

And the toughest part of that is it is never something structurally stable. Shit happens. Circumstances change. Rebuilding is part of the game.

But anyway, everything people seek from "recreational" drugs is ultimately about that social thing, and so ought to be judged against other social mechanisms (like hiking, clubs, whatever). What impresses is that drugs seem more potent than the other choices as they promise to go right to the neurobiological source.

That is true in the bullshit sense they stick a crude spanner in the works. But then that still leaves you having to make sense of what you just did. And that in turn takes things back to the social context which is the ultimate arbiter on the issue.

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

Well, it's been claimed that they may be helpful in some psychotherapeutic and sacramental contexts, for example. are you contending that all such claims are spurious? if so, on what basis would you claim that?

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.

And maybe there is a third thing - social lubrication. People feel very self-conscious and distant from each other. Drugs are a way to blur those interpersonal boundaries. But isn't it better to address the causes of this more than the symptoms? What is it about society and other people - or your own habits - that could be changed to remove the same awkwardness that booze or weed allegedly removes? — apokrisis

Excellent observation and nicely articulated.

I have had some extremely positive and vivid memories of experiences on psilocybin, LSD and MDMA. These memories make perfect sense to me. They are not troubling at all, so I don't see what harm such occasional experiences could do. They certainly enrich the stock of aesthetic memory and affect, if nothing else. They may and certainly do inspire creative work. The painting which is my current avatar was inspired by an overwhelming, extraordinary experience I had looking at the very tree which is the central subject.

Sure, and I have had absolutely terrifying experiences, in my case more to do with feeling i was about to die than worrying about the cops. The only possible answer is to be able to let go and accept your fear, adopting a disposition of acceptance which I have found usually dissolves the anxiety, and often transforms it into ecstatic visions. I think this applies to life in general, no amount of agonizing or thinking over your fears will solve the problem.

I can't remember ever having suffered afterwards from experience which were, at the time, unspeakably terrifying, and with the time dilation, seemed to go on forever. In fact usually after coming down from hallucinogens and having a good sleep I have felt purified and more rested than at most other times.

But then I am not you, so I am by no means recommending hallucinogens for you, or for anybody else. The point is, I don't generalize; such experiences may be greatly beneficial for some people and detrimental to others. They may even be nothing more than light fun for some, and of no great consequence at all.

And maybe there is a third thing - social lubrication. People feel very self-conscious and distant from each other. Drugs are a way to blur those interpersonal boundaries. But isn't it better to address the causes of this more than the symptoms? What is it about society and other people - or your own habits - that could be changed to remove the same awkwardness that booze or weed allegedly removes? — apokrisis

This is a good approach, and some people find that hallucinogens and entheogens will help them to implement the changes that need to be made. There is simply no 'one rule for all', that is the point.

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.

The fact that some people might misguidedly seek such experiences is irrelevant to what I have been arguing. People have to take responsibility for their own decisions as to what therapies or potential aids to make use of.

You continue to overgeneralize.

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?

Why is it careless? Are you saying that nobody tells anybody? if you are then I would say that you are generalizing again and it is not true. And the drugs we are discussing are not addictive and are very rarely life-threatening anyway. Aren't you being a tad alarmist here?

Well, yes, the aberration of reality or perversion of it though psychoactive drugs is not natural. — Posty McPostface

That assumes that the natural state, or rather the ordinary state that humans predominantly exemplify, is normal. Certainly, experiences with psychoactive agents can call that sense of normality into question. But then so too can some forms of asceticism or martial and spiritual disciplines - in fact, that is their aim. 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.

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

But you seem to firmly want to answer your question

Is the prejudiced belief that people are hedonists or want to 'escape' from reality for a brief while, actually the case? — Posty McPostface

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.

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?

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

Perhaps.

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. — Posty McPostface

The way we see the world is conditioned by our attitudes, many of which are unreflectively taken for granted. Philosophy, (as well as other activities) can help to loosen the grip unreflective attitudes have on us. experiences with psychoactive drugs may give us a different perspective, and also help in this 'loosening'. I say "may" because obviously they are not for everyone. I believe they can short-circuit some of the culturally accumulated cognitive patterns, and plunge us into the 'raw' affective, precognitive process of experience. That is why the experience can seem so extremely strange, and yet eerily familiar.

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

So, in light of what I said above, when you say this I would question what you think this "base undistorted reality" is. Can it be the culturally accumulated cognitive patterns we have been conditioned by, if these patterns are culturally relative?

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? — Posty McPostface

No...individualism does not equate with egotism.

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.

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?

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

Why would you say that? I even haven't talked about anything following anything else, much less about anything being caused by anything else.

It seems to me that you are not genuinely interested in discussing this subject. It is puzzling that you would start a thread on it, and then seem to do everything you can to avoid engaging with any of the responses you receive.

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.

That's nonsense, Posty; I haven't assumed any such thing, and even if I had it would not be an example of said fallacy.

I have said, or alluded to the fact, that some psychologists and therapists have claimed that psychedelics have helped their patients to overcome addictions and cognitive 'blocks'. I have said that in regard to my own experience they have been helpful in some respects, and that I cannot find any way in which they seem to have harmed me.

Even if I thought that psychedelics provide in some cases, "the needed shift in perception to fulfil whatever is thought to be the change needed in perception" it would not be an example of a post hoc fallacy any more than if I thought that certain nutrients provide in some cases the needed boost to plant growth to fulfil whatever is thought to be the change needed in plant growth. If a certain kind of change in perception is believed to be needed in certain cases, and it is believed that psychedelics will provide that kind of change, then that is merely a hypothesis to be tested, not a logical fallacy.

I digress. Thanks for entertaining these musings of sorts.

Sure, thanks for starting a thread on what I think is a very interesting and important topic.

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

We're talking about booze, nicotine, and THC, not crack-cocaine or Fentanyl. Different substances do different things, and many of them do not require professional advice before each use.

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

I'm not sure where this is coming from, but buying the car you fancy and getting the girl you've crushed on aren't placebos; the car actually drives, the woman actually womans. It can be quite an actual affair.

But if cars and chicks are placebos, illusions, then so is everything, right?

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. — Posty McPostface

I'm not saying anyone who takes drugs is weak or impotent, I'm saying that some substances for some people can strengthen them, allowing them to accomplish more (i.e, endure the stress of having more children). To say that psychoactive medication can make us more robust is not to say that anyone who indulges is therefore weak.

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. — Posty McPostface

My experience with the effects of such substances (and available data) along with my awareness of my own mental health allow me to choose when to indulge in things like booze or marijuana (when it might actually be relaxing/have a positive effect). I could ask whether or not you have a professional opinion stating that there is no detriment to NOT indulging from time to time.

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? — Posty McPostface

Hippies weren't nearly as drug heavy as today's youth. Perhaps someone of finer vintage can back me up here, but their main shtick was smoking the lowest quality weed known to man, talking about spiritualism/poetry, and having sex; enjoying themselves. It was a political and cultural movement AFAIK, not one based around substance use or abuse. There were definitely drugs at the hippie scenes, but there always have been mind altering substances present at gatherings of young adults, and they didn't exactly require drugs to found their existential platforms.

"Beat" (as in beatnik) culture was born of post war anti-conformity, which put them at odds with America's return to normalcy following WW2. They were anti-materialist black-beret sporting poetry-spouting anti-conformist free-loving jazz types, and many of them did experiment with drugs in search of new perspectives. The 60's gave way to hippiedom, which inherited beat ideas, vernacular and its shitty weed. Beats became hippies, and when LSD finally struck mid 60's it was popular among all the counter-cultures. Meanwhile mainstream culture was as saturated in tobacco, alcohol, et al., as ever. Different tokes...

Why did the hippies decline? I'm not entirely sure, but aside from the natural progression and continual evolution that all cultures undergo, the end of the Vietnam war was perhaps their final victory. Without the war to protest (and with hippie culture seeming less and less hip), it just naturally went away. Hippies and hippie culture grew up and out of themselves, though they've surely left some lasting marks.

Reducing them to a bunch of drug addicts is far too simple. The original Beat generation was reactionary: rejected the post-war mainstream as futile, materialistic, repressed, and narrow minded. By the end of the 70's American culture was far less repressed and much had changed, diverged, and diversified. The 80's came with harder and more dangerous drugs (in greater quantities) than ever before (new gangs too), which probably sucked up and destroyed a lot of nostalgia chasing late-era hippies.The rest went straight.

Drugs may have been a final nail in the hippie coffin, but were not alone the cause of death.

Not everyone, some yes. — Posty McPostface

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

When you eat a chocolate bar you alter your mind; when you do squats you alter your mind; when you watch T.V you alter your mind; when you read and write forum posts you alter your mind.

Changes to your body affect your mind, and changes to your mind affect your body. Diet, physical activity, and mental activity/stimulus of all kinds have ramifications on your health and behavior which extend well beyond our ability to fathom. Hormones, phermones; neurotransmitters: eating sugar filled junk food can cause your body to produce more things like tryptophan, insulin, and serotonin. Eat enough of it on a regular basis and you can become addicted in the sense that you will have constant cravings and experience withdraw symptoms. Like so many things, it alters our reactionary minds. Too much sleep, or too little, and you'll be harming yourself substance free. Moderation is a useful skill.

Depressing, really. — Posty McPostface

Our dreams are only depressing if you want them to be. And while we cannot directly control what we want, we can through some perhaps wholesome practices such as exercise, good diet, and meditation/self reflection, improve our desires and our general outlook; we can alter our minds. The relaxation and perspective altering effects of some substances can be useful on the whole. After millennia of such consumption we're practically optimized for it.

We all get our fix though. It's why we come here; it's why we eat; it's why we work; it's why we strive, reproduce, build, enshrine, etc...

We're all seeking happiness, a life worth living, so what's the use in begrudging one path and not others so arbitrarily? If the quality of the road is high, and the destination desirable, why not?

Here's Jack Kerouac, the quintessential beatnik, reading the last page of his novel "On the Road" which supposedly encapsulates the beat movement:



He more than embraces the bleakness of reality in his writings, and somehow he manages to savour it. Beat culture was a reaction to a depressing reality, marked by a concerted effort to have a good time.

It's really not all that bad.

what's the lure of mind altering drugs to a person? — Posty McPostface

I'm a bit late here, but I thought I'd chime in anyway.

Recently, I've been listening through quite a lot of stoner doom metal and on pretty much every album that's on YouTube I find loads of comments about how great the music is when you're blasted, high, whatever. The irony is that most of these albums are hopelessly ponderous and drab, making me wonder if the music somehow becomes great just because you're on drugs. Except, I don't think they do. The music is bad whether you're high whilst listening to it or not. The listener changes, in other words, not the music. If the music is good, it's good, and if it's bad, no degree of drug taking will make it good. I mean, I love Dopesmoker, it's a great album. But I don't do drugs or drink or whatever else. Am I missing out? Are the punishingly heavy riffs any less emotive because I listen cleanly? Not to me. If you need weed or meth to enjoy music, then you're a loser. The same goes for someone who can't get through the day without shooting heroin.

I guess the crux of what I'm trying to say is that when somebody does drugs, they do so in order to feel a certain way. And for the people who think that the world begins and ends with how they feel, reality for them becomes a shifting sands. This is one reason why drug rehab is so painfully difficult, because addicts can't see a world outside of the needles, joints, and highs. I guess I'm a prude, but in the end I'd rather enjoy a glass of sweet tea than shoot myself up with some drugs if we're talking simple pleasures.