I learned much at college but almost nothing of any use from the courses — unenlightened

My uni attendance was delayed, following a terrible senior-school performance. As noted, late 60’s, there was a lot of social turmoil, I escaped a stuffy private boy’s school for an alternative-culture experimental school, at which I spend considerably more time socialising than working. A consequence of which being that I got into uni about five years later as an ‘adult entrant’ on the basis of a comprehension test. And the major part of that text was a large slab of Bertrand Russell’s Mysticism and Logic, which was right up my street, and pretty well set the parameters of my subsequent course of study. It eventually culminated in a BA with Honours in Comparative Religion (emphatically not “divinity”!) Not that it has yielded much of use professionally, although on returning to complete my belated Honours year in 1989, I wound up working in the Uni computer shop, which turned out to be the basis of the modest career I’ve enjoyed in the tech industry since then.

But I’ve been studying more or less the same curriculum since, and still pursue it here.

On the contrary all my formal education seemed designed to create the "ideal" conforming angst-ridden robot, that is all governments can cope with. — unenlightened

I can see the antipsychiatry sentiments here. Drugs have a purpose; but, not the ones you would prescribe.

When paychologists and psychiatrists turn into modern day shamans, things usually go downhill.

Witchdoctors and stuff.

In my mind, what this means is that a good college education is of greater value for becoming open-minded and non-conformist. — Shawn

A good college education would result in open-minded, nonconformist graduates.

Regarding which, do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? Too many...

do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? — Shawn

I wouldn't blame the drugs. If a student is intelligent enough and focused enough, then drugs are not an issue. However, if the so-called student is simply looking to party the whole time, then that's the college lesson they get to learn. On the other hand, some students are using drugs to study and focus harder. Drugs are not inherently bad, but their effects depend on the way and the purpose for which they are used. There is a certain measure of skill and sophistication necessary to effectively take a drug for constructive purposes.

I personally categorize drugs into two main categories i like to call "demonic" and "angelic", where one tends to contract consciousness in some way, and the other expands consciousness in some way respectively. Both categories have beneficial utility in the right or appropriate set and setting.

Drugs can make you more of what you already are, or drugs can make you less than what you already are... it all depends.

Regarding which, do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? Too many... — Shawn

I wonder how many of those students don't pay their own tuition fees. I wonder how many distract themselves - whether with recreational drugs (including alcohol) or sports or social activities - because they should not have been there in the first place. Many young people embark on higher education simply because it is expected of them.
And, too, pressure to succeed, to compete, to excel may drive many others to the performance enhancing drugs that have a whole other set of side- and long-term effects.
Some of that dropping out may be due, not to the drug-use but to the initial reason for drug use.

Regarding which, do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? Too many...

Who cares why students who going to drop out of college, choose to spend their time while in the process of dropping out? Getting high, getting drunk, playing video games, romancing everyone in sight, getting overly involved in intramural sports, staring at YouTube videos... It doesn't matter.

This is perplexing to me. I say that because the use of hallucinogens or psychedelics are associated with psychotic states of the mind. Psychosis is by definition a break from reality. How can a break from reality bring one closer to reality? — Shawn

Regarding counterfactuals, and the doubt in your mind about these or some of these experiences, why is there so much glamourization of psychedelics? I mentioned this in another comment; but, people think there is some kind of 'truth' to these experiences; but is there really any truth to them? — Shawn

I can adequately respond to this one. As a precursor, though, all the data in this area is preliminary and you can't particularly take seriously un-replicated results that are experimental rather than reportage or observational. Therefore, all claims in this area need a pinch of salt. However, the overwhelming academic position is that its all 'leaning positive' rather than negative, when controlled and overseen.

In short, that claim is wrong:

https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/challenging-old-assumptions-twin-study-reveals-surprising-connection-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/ (its the same report, essentially)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269881115596156 Krebs and Johanssen reply here if you scroll

Largely, that association is a media-driven one. What Psychedelics (though, this is more 'on-point' for MDMA as a conceptual description) tend to really do is reduce bloodflow in areas of the brain like the Thalamus and anterior cingulate cortex that help process emotional data and manifest "thoughts" with valences. Thus, you 'receive' thoughts without the (usually) highly-entrenched valence you have pre-recorded. This is why MDMA users in controlled environments can, for instance, process war trauma without the 'shell shock' reaction. It's a reason why Mescaline tends to be something that heals generational/family episodes of disconnection.

For these other psychedelics, the action is a little bit more ambiguous(mesc, particularly), but hte effect appears to be roughly the same. This can be applied to whatever psychology has caused an addiction or other self-destructive behaviour. This is also why the experiences tend to have a noetic (truer than true) quality to them. People have experiences of (real) clarity and insight into their own behaviour and psychology that (at least they believe) could not have been accessed another way. Arguable, its the experience per se, not the access point that matters, but in any case, the 'truth' of the experience seems to be far more to do with its practicable element.

Most psychedelics have a very different historical milieu and the overall experiences differ - but the detail, in terms of specific psycho-spiritual (as they say) outcomes is fairly uniform in these controlled environments. That can be expected when they're all roughly in the same two families (serotonergics and phenethylamines).

I think the problem is that people having these subjective experiences that result in objectively 'good' outcomes in their life find it hard to assign that as arbitrarily access as part of the drug experience. But, that's tough luck IMO. Its a drug experience.

This has been a rant, but it's also been a significant and important part of my personal and professional life for going on 20 years.

As a side note, which I think even the enquiry is, the 'glamorization' I think is a result of two things:
Psychedelics present one with novel psychology; colours, shapes, feelings, experiences you've never even conceived of before (in the best cases). They are extreme in terms of metaphysical thought. Its all bright, shiny, spectacular stuff - it's hard not to rave. Second, I think that the fact people are spending 20, 30, 50 years suffering heinously from a debilitating mental anguish that nothing has had any effect on - and within six hours you're 'healed' and on a path to true functionality gives reason enough to allow for some evangelising. But, salt to be taken: the risks are real too.

When paychologists and psychiatrists turn into modern day shamans, things usually go downhill. — Shawn

I don't think this is true. Psychology is largely nonsense anyway, but that aside, psychiatry has clearly failed in its endeavours. Shamanism, in general, seems to be doing a better job when syncretized with modern medicinal practices like control groups and mental support. In that environment, the results are rigorously outstanding.

I'd like to add to my OP, that I don't quite understand the 1960's that well. I know it was the counterculture movement; but, I don't understand why it became a fascination with drugs... I mean, it was about peace, love, and political activism; but, why the popularity arose to drugs? — Shawn

It's a very good question, "Why are drug so popular?"

I did not use drugs very often during the 1960s and 70s; I did not try mescaline when the rest of the group tried it. Never did magic mushrooms, LSD, or any thing else aside of tobacco and alcohol, and pot, once in a while, when somebody offered it. Clearly, many people find drug use a rewarding experience, for pleasure, for novel mental experiences, and so on. People who become addicted (opiates, cocaine, meth...) experience the pleasure of the drug and the pleasure of quelling the unpleasantness of the drug wearing off. That goes for alcohol and tobacco, too.

Today the German Federal Government announced that last year they had seized a shipment of something like 9 tons of cocaine valued at more than 2 billion dollars. That's a lot.

It's true now, it has been true for quite a long time, that drug production is an organized activity. The large quantities of drugs produced, be it big bales of weed or barrels of Fentanyl, demonstrate production prowess. Drugs are produced, distributed, packaged, sold, and promoted. Not saying there are hawkers on the street crying out that they have cocaine laced with fentanyl. But promotion takes place, none the less--a lot of it by and among users. Where a drug is legalized (be it tobacco, alcohol, cannabis...) promotion becomes overt.

if I could have one condition granted to bestow upon my enemy or targeted population, it would be for them all to be high. Very high. — Outlander

I think one could make a case for foreign actors attacking the United States through the smuggling/importation of addictive and toxic substances, like fentanyl. I have never might a frequent drug user (cannabis, cocaine, meth...) who demonstrated societal benefit from their drug use.

I took a break from this topic, only to ponder about the things other users have said. So, I'm sorry if I don't address your post individually; but, you may find some of the contents of this post edifying instead...

I wanted to bring into the discussion the concept of homeostasis. Namely, that human beings tend to gravitate or naturally exist in a normalizing relationship with their natural tendencies to seek out homeostasis in their lives. Homeostasis is a state where a human being is in a stable state functioning. This state is commonly known as 'sobriety.'

Now, it might seem perplexing that a person seeks out a high or mind alteration by the administration of already mentioned substances to one's homeostatic state. Based on what has been discussed already in this discussion, people want new experiences or better mood in their daily functioning. Sometimes a person will drink alcohol, a commonly known substance, to improve their mood or alter their mood or even suppress some mood. So, because having a mood is in response to our memories and environment, then do other members think that altering one's mood reflects something about how our nature is susceptible to a dysregulated state of homeostasis. If so, what are your thoughts about the matter?

quote="Shawn;911227"]Now, it might seem perplexing that a person seeks out a high or mind alteration by the administration of already mentioned substances to one's homeostatic state.[/quote]

Hmmm. As I wrote earlier:

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain. — Tom Storm

Human beings in most cultures throughout history have used substances and had roles for mind altering experiences. We relish and build lives around exhilarating activities, risk taking, extreme sports, adrenalin inducing movies, etc, etc. Kids often go around in circles in order to spin out and fall over. We seem to be hard wired to try and mix things up with thrills, euphoria, elation and other similar sensations. Unless someone is on the spectrum, boredom and routine are often experienced as 'soul' destroying. Particularly when younger.

Human beings in most cultures throughout history have used substances and had roles for mind altering experiences. We relish and build lives around exhilarating activities, risk taking, extreme sports, adrenalin inducing movies, etc, etc. Kids often go around in circles in order to spin out and fall over. We seem to be hard wired to try and mix things up with thrills, euphoria, elation and other similar sensations. Unless someone is on the spectrum, boredom and routine are often experienced as 'soul' destroying. Particularly when younger. — Tom Storm

Sure, but, how do you explain the negative image that the government presents of drug users, as you say? Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs.

To me, its interesting since, as you say, most cultures in human history have had some experiences with one mind altering or mood altering drug or the other.

To put this more succinctly, if I want drugs and the government doesn't allow it, then what gives?

Sure, but, how do you explain the negative image that the government presents of drug users, as you say? Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs. — Shawn

In countries with more reflective governments (Holland, for instance) drugs are decriminalized. I don't really care what government's say. Not that long ago they criminalized homosexuality. Some governments still do.

What you are pointing to is that many activities come with risks. Drug use can lead to addiction and can cause death. Driving cars can lead to fatal collisions. Most things people do have a shadow side.

if I want drugs and the government doesn't allow it, then what gives? — Shawn

Really an entirely separate issue to what we have been discussing. I'm only talking about what people do and why. I have made no comment thus far about whether it is safe.

Homeostasis is a state where a human being is in a stable state functioning. This state is commonly known as 'sobriety.' — Shawn

Homeostasis is a technical term from biology. ‘Stasis’ is a more accurate description of the normal state. Which leads us to the etymological root of ‘ecstacy’, that is based on the same root word:

ecstacy: late Middle English: from Old French extasie, via late Latin from Greek ekstasis ‘standing outside oneself’, based on ek- ‘out’ + histanai ‘to place’.

But then apart from the etymology, the meaning is:

1. an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement.
"there was a look of ecstasy on his face"
Similar:
rapture
bliss
elation
euphoria
…
Opposite:
misery
2. an emotional or religious frenzy or trance-like state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence.

So perhaps the interesting philosophical question would be, why would being ‘outside oneself’ result in ‘great happiness or joyful excitement’? And, do intoxicants or hallucinogens genuinely induce such states?

I wonder how many distract themselves - whether with recreational drugs (including alcohol) or sports or social activities - because they should not have been there in the first place. Many young people embark on higher education simply because it is expected of them.
And, too, pressure to succeed, to compete, to excel may drive many others to the performance enhancing drugs that have a whole other set of side- and long-term effects.
Some of that dropping out may be due, not to the drug-use but to the initial reason for drug use. — Vera Mont

I took that too close to heart as I still don't know what I'm doing since taking a hiatus from my education. I'm finishing up the same degree later this year having transferred to a more prestigious university with most expenses covered by state or parents but I still don't understand what I'm to do aside from get it over with.

I know one thing I won't do anymore. . . drink. Hell of a distraction on those free weekends. A drain on your expenses and an ever present potential spiral into a violent irrationalism.

I know one thing I won't do anymore. . . drink. Hell of a distraction on those free weekends. A drain on your expenses and an ever present potential spiral into a violent irrationalism. — substantivalism

Excellent start to figuring things out. Looks as if you have a lot of re-evaluation and planning to do. You'll need your clearest head. I wish you all the luck!

I still don't understand what I'm to do aside from get it over with — substantivalism

What you are expected to do, and most likely what you can, you must, you shall, and you will do (after you get it over with) is find a job; inhabit hopefully decent housing; pay your bills; gradually pay off loans; shop for groceries; do laundry; establish a short/medium/long term relationship; and more! It's called LIFE. Most people are reasonably happy doing this stuff a good share of the time.

Does this sound bleak and unsatisfying? It might be dreary at times, but another task waiting to be done is finding ways of making your life meaningful and interesting as an adult.

Based on my 77 years of experience, I recommend that anyone NOT expect life to be meaningful and exciting all or most of the time. Life doesn't work that way because maintenance is necessary, time consuming, and is not all that exciting. Meaning and interesting experiences ARE possible, though. Look for the opportunities as you go along.

Does this help?

Excellent start to figuring things out. Looks as if you have a lot of re-evaluation and planning to do. You'll need your clearest head. I wish you all the luck! — Vera Mont

Your input is appreciated.

What you are expected to do, and most likely what you can, you must, you shall, and you will do (after you get it over with) is find a job; inhabit hopefully decent housing; pay your bills; gradually pay off loans; shop for groceries; do laundry; establish a short/medium/long term relationship; and more! It's called LIFE. Most people are reasonably happy doing this stuff a good share of the time. — BC

I already do those things. In the two year hiatus I've taken I got a job and worked up to being an assistant manager with a few assorted retirement/medical benefits. I've indulged in some high amount of spending as one does when they get a growing bank account but still can support myself and leave enough aside for a new car, medical emergencies, in case I get laid off for 2-3 months, food, car payments, insurance, etc.

Its nothing glamorous at times and perhaps I work too much to my own detriment.

Course, its the existential element that is not fulfilled. Philosophy and the uncovering of the wonders of this world via physics insights are meant to serve that purpose. . . or so I thought. Now even that has become neglected and dusty as I struggle to find any worth in its conventional or arbitrary pursuits. Meta-philosophy especially has ruined my view of it all and now I'm beginning to see every academic in a similar lights as the occasional raving lunatic on vixra.org. I reject these dissidents only out of laziness as I've found I lack much of any foundation or what foundation I possess is so mundane as to not spark the same fascination I possessed when I was younger.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind.

Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs. — Shawn

Of course governments, as deliberative, law/regulation/rule making, data-gathering, society managing agencies, have a negative view of drugs. Agents within the government see large numbers of people very negatively affected by their use of meth, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco. They see large amounts of money going down the drain on untaxed products, and they see the costs of medical care for alcoholism, lung cancer, addiction, and general dysfunction. (Yeah, cannabis fits in there in various ways.).

Magic mushrooms might be useful as a means of therapy or enlightenment. But nobody thinks that narcotics are therapeutic or enlightening. They are essentially cash cows by means of rapid and strong addiction. Tobacco and alcohol are also addicting, of course, Neither of them are "healthful" in any way, but people can get away using these drugs without immediate severe consequences (which arrive decades later).

Do people find relief in using tobacco, cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl...? Sure -- they get "relief" from the addictive craving. Tobacco smokers swear that smoking is relaxing, It isn't. Nicotine is a strong stimulant. But when one's body is due for another dose 10 to 30 minutes after the last dose, it feels good. The craving is relieved, but the CNS is not relaxed.

So, an addict overdue for the next dose is not in a state of homeostasis. The next snort, injection, pill, glass, smoke, dose, etc. brings them back to their normal state, but It is NOT NORMAL to require cocaine, meth, or heroin to feel OK.

We need not judge addicts as immoral, and we need not call their need for a drug normal.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind. — substantivalism

That's off the table, once you've lost your illusions. You need to push on through the fug and find a new source of satisfaction. Go take a hike. Or sailing trip. Or join a volunteer group to renovate old ships or save abused donkeys.... Something completely different, in a new environment, among strangers. You never know where your personal inspiration waits unless you go exploring.

I already do those things. — substantivalism

Great. So you get that part.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind. — substantivalism

"Management of the mind" is a critical part of finding interest, meaning, or bliss in life. It is quite possible to think/read/talk one's way into a dead end of unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and depressing ideas. Sometimes we have to give our books notice that they just aren't being very helpful, and go look elsewhere for inspiration.

Perhaps volunteer to take a ship of abused donkeys on a hike?

One abused donkey left the ship, joined up with a herd of elk and found happiness at last. Should @substantivalism consider living with a herd of elk? (Story was in today's Guardian)

Yes, but some people need that spice in their lives. There is an astonishing amount of money spent on drugs every year that supports organized crime.

I suppose the follow up question to this thread is to the point in asking, why do people want or need drugs? Is it curiosity or a need derived out of a sense of emotional poverty or boredom in ones life?

Thanks for the post BC!

Should substantivalism consider living with a herd of elk? — BC

Why not? It worked for Farley Mowat
I'm only suggesting that if you want to get a different perspective, you have to go looking somewhere new.

I suppose the follow up question to this thread is to the point in asking, why do people want or need drugs? Is it curiosity or a need derived out of a sense of emotional poverty or boredom in ones life? — Shawn

You asked this from the beginning and it seems to me this has been answered. Is it that you don't agree or do you not like the answer?

And as I've said a couple of times -

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain.
— Tom Storm — Tom Storm

I've often wondered why there are not more people who are substance dependent.

I don't know what you mean with 'emotional poverty' - this sounds judgemental, but perhaps you don't mean it like this.

People who have had experiences of trauma are more likely to use substances and become dependent on them. I don't consider this emotional poverty. Drugs in these cases are self-medication for dysregulation and anxiety.

But mostly drugs are fun. That's the key. They are enjoyable. As someone who has abused alcohol over many years I can only say that I enjoyed it very much and getting drunk was almost always a highlight.

You asked this from the beginning and it seems to me this has been answered. Is it that you don't agree or do you not like the answer? — Tom Storm

I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. In my deepest contemplation, I think the reasons for substance abuse can vary widely but almost always appeal to an emotional imbalance or ennui. I mostly think the majority of people on one drug or another have a hard time feeling loved or appreciated by anyone including those with or without close one's to talk to or reciprocate empathy or sympathy for their situation.

I live in California and we really have a high homelessness population...

I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. — Shawn

I thought so. I wonder why you think this way? Care to elaborate?

getting drunk — Tom Storm

That's the good part. "Being drunk" is a somewhat different, less pleasant experience. Full disclosure: "flat out drunk" is something I have not achieved frequently. It usually ended poorly. Sociability is enhanced while one is getting drunk. One is livelier, wittier, more easily amused, etc. Once one is drunk enough to fall off the bar stool, lively wit is down the toilet (literally and figuratively).

Trauma does seem to be a factor -- trauma from childhood, trauma in battle, trauma in one's life... And some people (a fairly small percentage of the population) seem to be predisposed to addiction. For most people, though, I think you are correct in naming "fun" as the primary driver. Escape from the unpleasant realities of life (apart from trauma) is also a driver.

I thought so. I wonder why you think this way? Care to elaborate? — Tom Storm

I doubt there's any fundamental all encompassing truth as to why people take drugs or what motivates them to do so as there are quite a few drugs out there...

But, it seems to me that part of the reason is emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. And then there's pure hedonism which seems like a non significant population of drug users, paradoxically. Does that make any sense?