BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Drugs as Tools

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
cusm
14:58 / 25.09.02
Moved from this thread.

iconoplast

I have a hard time believing that drugs are a necessary element in a spiritual experience.

The place drugs take you is, I believe, in the direction cardinally opposite spirituality.

- what about drugs is spiritual? What can you learn from them, and (most important) what have you learned from them?

Can any drug be spiritual? Is it a property in their chemical makeups?

I admit that my personal experience has given me a lot of cause to doubt that drugs are needed for, um... pretty much any spiritual endeavor. In fact, I think of them as being sort of toxic to spirituality. Do you find that you can return, without drugs, to the states you reached with them? Is it easier after you've done them? Was it possible before?

Basically, I've gotten this really creepy feeling that, since the spirituality I found with/through/on drugs was so limpid in comparison to that which I've found without... I'm starting to think maybe I was just, you know. On drugs. And not, in fact, talking to god.


Good stuff to start from. Opinions?
 
 
Mystery Gypt
15:03 / 25.09.02
i'm having trouble, to start with (as i did in the other thread) with the phrase "not, in fact, talking to god."

the idea that some talkings to god is more rooted in "Fact" than others has been for me one of those prime things challenged by a broad experiential spirituality.

to put it another way: the people who have a literal belief in the objective reality of their mystical visions seem to cause more problems than people who get stoned and try to understand the world from multiple angles.

if the thrust of this debate is "which way is the best way to IN FACT see god" i don't think we're going to get very far.
 
 
cusm
15:10 / 25.09.02
No, fundamentalist views seldom do produce productive conversation. For this sort of discussion, the idea that any one view of God can not be the Final and Absolute Truth and that other views have something to offer will have to be maintained. No one has All of the answers, after all.
 
 
The Falcon
16:02 / 25.09.02
Ecstasy made me realise that it was, in fact, 'nice to be nice', and that my attitude had been somewhat, erm... crap, a priori.

It seems fundamental to a lot of people who don't like/don't really like drugs that an experience (any experience) is 'valid' without drugs, but not with them. Usually, because you feel crap/fucking awful the next day, or midweek, I think. Kind of like a hangover... but I never heard anybody talking about drunk experiences as 'invalid', funnily enough.

Ecstasy also enhances sex, which is probably the most desired and (invert those commas!) 'valid' experience available.

Thus, and therefore: I really like drugs.
 
 
The Falcon
16:16 / 25.09.02
Also, I don't think the 'talking to God' bit is entirely serious - but when you have Christianity hardwired into you culturally (I can't speak for anyone else's religious basis) from primary school onwards, which I did - my parents weren't Christians or anything, the meme does surface occasionally when you're on LSD or psilocybin, for example. Paul on the road to Damascus, and suchlike...

Rationality/superego and personal modesty (along with the average drug-abuser's denominations of choice: agnosticism and atheism) tend to override this 'communion' impulse though.

This religious hardwire is also a large part of why Sandman (best example) was really popular, I think.
 
 
Professor Silly
16:21 / 25.09.02
I read of a study where scientists took a series of writings, half written by people who had a mystical experience trying to explain the sensations, the other half written by people explaining their experience on LSD. The scientists then had a third group of people look at all the writings, mixed up, in order to see if they could differenciate which were which (i.e. which were the ramblings of a drugged mind and which were inspired by God). Their findings: people could not tell the difference one bit. While this doesn't say anything about the relationship of these two situations, it does imply that bystanders won't have the ability to know the difference.

In my view, it seems like certain drugs can give a preview of what magicians force to happen through will...a temporary glimpse of what will happen for real later. In this sense drugs seem like training wheels--can sort of give an idea of what it should feel like, but doesn't teach one the fundamental notion of balance.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
18:04 / 25.09.02
i'm just wondering if there's anyone here who can legitimately explain this supposed difference between a mystical experience that is "for real" and one that is not. a mystical experience is by its nature TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE... some people get them from leaving society and not eating for 40 years (im not interested in that), some people get them from chanting about in the woods, some from dancing on drugs, some from... well from all kinds of things, many of which are described on this very forum.

someone show me the "for real" part of all this and then maybe there will be something to argue about. otherwise, it's a "your god is better than mine" debate and that's frickin' medieval.
 
 
reFLUX
18:53 / 25.09.02
maybe a spiritual encounter with god is the same as a drug encounter with god, the alteration of the brain. coz when yer talking to god yer just talking to yourself.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:52 / 25.09.02
Shortcut to enlightenment, or traps for fools? Are drugs valid tools to spiritual awakening?

To the first question: why can't they be both?

To the second: Yes, I believe they are. Before I began to take Wellbutrin, I knew that something was wrong with me. I figured that it wasn't possible that everyone else felt like me, because I was fucking miserable a lot of the time, and nothing in the world would ever get done. But I didn't know what it was like to have normal seratonin levels, to have good moods and bad, to be "normal". I don't think I could have fixed it myself, because I didn't know what I was aiming for. It wasn't until I was on medication that I realized how bad it was and how good it could be.

I guess the point is that drugs can get you somewhere else really quickly, and sometimes that's a good thing. Most of them can't keep you there indefinately, but why would you want them to? It would be just another thing for you to be dependent on. But that trip to "somewhere else" can give you a better view of where you are when you are not on drugs, which makes it easier for you when it comes time to decide where you're going. You have a better view of the territory, so to speak.

I've done both ways. A spiritual experience on drugs is no different from one without. You may feel differently about the two afterwards, but they are not intrinsically different. Drugs are a tool. A very powerful, very useful, and very dangerous tool.

Basically, I've gotten this really creepy feeling that, since the spirituality I found with/through/on drugs was so limpid in comparison to that which I've found without... I'm starting to think maybe I was just, you know. On drugs. And not, in fact, talking to god.

I've gotten this feeling before. The spiritual experience without drugs begins to feel better because it only needs what you are and what you have with you all the time, not what you put into yourself thirty minutes beforehand.

And just what does the phrase "on drugs" mean, anyway?
 
 
iconoplast
21:11 / 25.09.02
I'm sorry if my position's offensive. I'm really trying not to be. Basically, assume my position to be fear. Fear based on experience, but fear nonetheless.

So, right: given that drugs are not an option I'll consider for my own spiritual use at this time, I wanted to know... "Am I really missing anything?"

I mean - look. Lots of people like drugs. Hell, I still, despite all experience, like drugs, in a weird way. I just... I really feel like drugs aren't enough, that they're dangerous, and that people who take them for ostensibly spiritual reasons can after time forget the reasons and just remember the drugs.

And, epistomology-wise, I guess that, yeah - I'm saying there's a difference between thinking you're having a spiritual experience and actually having one. I'm not sure what or where the difference is, but.

I don't really know where I'm going with this. I'd hoped someone would sort of... I don't know. Justify drugs' place in a shamanic repertoire. Explain where the line is between exploration and self-destruction. Or else see if anyone else is having doubts that all the drugs they've done really were spiritual. The first time? Easy to argue for. The hundredth? I have a hard time convincing myself that I was still pursuing anything worthwhile at that point.

It is entirely possible that the doubts are just me, though.
 
 
Wrecks City-Zen
21:50 / 25.09.02
Without getting to detailed:

I have had phenomenal magic success using crystal meth for my magical practices/divination. For some reason (could be the 'crystal' part, it plugged my mind directly into 'the switchboard' and I received information without a point of origin.By that I mean, I entered a state of gnosis using the substance and extracted information which proved to be legitimate and later provable.(For example: I had no prior knowledge of the runic system and returned from my trip with full knowledge of the meaning of all the runes and more...another thread.)

Also,could have sworn I time traveled on Special K/ Ketamine. There is a thread about my experience somewhere in the Magick archives.
 
 
The Falcon
23:22 / 25.09.02
Iconoplast - yes, drugs are dangerous. I (subconsciously?) have hardly ever dealt directly with a dealer, going instead through friends/acquaintances who already knew dealers (e.g. - 'Are you getting drugs tonight? Yeah? Here's £7.50, can I get a bag of speed too? Thanks.') I wouldn't trust myself if my access to drugs was too easy - my most sustained period of abuse was taking ecstasy once a week for a couple of months, but I haven't taken it in several months.

How often do you perform magic rites? (Incidentally, I think an element of risk is fundamental to most worthwhile undertakings.) Do one once a month, w/drugs - see what you get. The effect isn't dissipated, as your body's had enough time to process the previous dose.

Anyway, these are just a few suggestions - I'm not at all offended by your stance, it's yours to have.
 
 
Papess
23:52 / 25.09.02
iconoplast posted:
Justify drugs' place in a shamanic repertoire

Drugs can shift the "assemblage point", or your point of awareness, dramatically and quicker for most people. I am not saying that some others cannot do this without drugs, but it is the nature of drugs to quickly change one's everyday, mundane awareness once it's properties are ingested and absorbed. For the average spiritualist/magician/shaman...the states of awareness achieved by drugs takes many years to accomplish by the various disciplines in different traditions, i.e., meditation, yoga, prayer, chanting...etc. There are beings that are born here or abide here on our planet who do not need drugs and are able to do this shift of the assemblage point easily and without years of training. They are but a few.

Drugs somehow, bypass our ego or trick it in some way so we are able to let go of our regular worldview and gain a different perspective on it or even, give us a different world to view. This can indeed be helpful. Magick though, is about will. If one does not learn to shift their own assemblage point, use their will, their intent, then they are not performing magick.

I think that the issue of whether it is harmful or not is expressed in the degree to which the mage uses their own will in relation to drugs.

You see, I perceive drugs as having some sort of sentience. They are entities of different natures that find a way into this world, (the world of man) through our egos and by using whatever plant or chemical they are able to attune with in order to be ingested and experience our world. Don Juan often refers to the being that manifests itself through peyote and insists Carlos call it by hir proper name. My guess is because he was introducing him to the being and not merely the plant or drug itself.

Having explained my own view, you might understand where the will issue comes in for me. Is it your will or the entity's will? Some drugs are doorways to harsh mistresses/masters (hehe, the PC term being mastresses?...LOL), which seem to compel us to continually ingest the drug that which gives them the ability to manifest through us and use our bodies as a host. These creatures have some very different moods but most, indeed, are just as addicted to this world as we are to the boost of energy we get from their entering into us. Not all of these beings are obsessive about manifesting here though. It is the difference between the will of a crack(being) or the will pot(being) but also the user's will. Crack has a very aggressive mood, heroin has a seductive nurturing mood, and mushrooms are generally happy and mystical. These moods, combined with the mood of the person can create some odd behavior and emotions.

If a person has not used other methods to discipline himself or herself and rely on the drug, they cannot achieve that state without the drug. Unless of course, they can do this easily and in that case, why would they bother with drugs?

There is a story I was told about one of the reincarnations of the Karmapa visiting America in the 60's. There were a bunch of hippies that went to go see him and they of course, had lots of dope on them. One of the drugs was acid and the Karmapa asked them to show him their stash. When they did, he grabbed a handful and ingested them. They did not affect him at all. His own will transcended the will of the entity and he chose where his awareness would be and was in control of his own mind the whole time. If someone has that kind of discipline, I suppose it doesn’t matter if they take drugs or not, they are already able to do what it is the entity offers.

My point is, whose will in play? Is yours? Or are you the drugs hand puppet?

~MT
 
 
Raziel
00:34 / 26.09.02
A spiritual awakening due to the use of drugs? I'm not really sure what to say about that. It could be the only way to have a true experience or it could also just be a crock. You could be talking to God or you could just as easily be talking to Bugs Bunny.
 
 
De Selby
00:55 / 26.09.02
You could be talking to God or you could just as easily be talking to Bugs Bunny.

But isn't the point of a spiritual experience, to gain some sort of spiritual enlightenment or awakening? As long as the "spirit" gets involved, I can't see the difference between talking to Bugs Bunny or God, they're both just serving a purpose...

Its only when you enter "which god is bigger" debates that it matters.

And doesn't it go against the basic understanding of most "spiritual" people, ie. that everything is spiritual, to say a certain experience is more valid than another? Surely, what matters is the presence of the spirit rather than a state of sobriety?

a good analogy for drugs (can't remember where I read it), is that consciousness is like a window in a house. Reality, is everything outside of the house. Drugs, change the windows size, shape, colour, etc and thus change your view of reality. So alcohol would shrink the window, mescaline would be a colour filter, acid would change the glass itself, etc...

Keeping with that analogy, just because you're on drugs, doesn't mean the spiritual experience wouldn't have happened otherwise, or is less legitimate. You just would've got a differing view of it, or might not have noticed it when sober.

sorry.... I'm rambling.... its early in the morning....
 
 
Imaginary Mongoose Solutions
03:10 / 26.09.02
Any thoughts on the interaction of drugs on early developing human consciousness and magickal practices? Mckenna paints the Adam and Eve tale as an allegory for humanity being seperated from the fungal influences that had helped shape culture to this point.

If he and other researchers are correct, drugs are not just tools in spiritual awakening but instrumental in the awakening of what we consider to be basic human consciousness.
 
 
illmatic
10:44 / 26.09.02
I don't mean to start a row or belittle McKenna's work - not read much of it, but heard him lecture (twice- damn good). When I heard that evolution theory of his I was a little sceptical tho' cos of the source ie. him, he's hardly objective when it comes to drugs is he? Do you believe a guy who out-drugged the entire Grateful Dead? It'd just sound more suprising if it cam from a boring grey suited professor.
Anyway, I acknowledge this is random subjective predjudice which may be distorting my view on a good idea, I dunno.
I read another guy who had similarly outre ideas on the origin of conciousness, Oscar Kiss Maerth. His thesis was that our conciousness has evolved due to canibalism, eating each others brains back in the mists of history, which we did for sexual stimualtion! Well, we'll never see him in Scientific American will we? - but it's interesting that both these theories refer to taboo areas in our culture (sex drugs and violence), and an implied unaturalness in our evolution.
 
 
illmatic
11:01 / 26.09.02
Iconoplast: "The first time? Easy to argue for. The hundredth? I have a hard time convincing myself that I was still pursuing anything worthwhile at that point."

Interesting point. One of my fave books is Choyagam Trunpa's "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" where he makes the point, very lucidly, that we frequently turn our spiritual experince into an object, another possession to be proud of and this gets in the way of our development. I think somehow that this craving for new experience and chasing after the "buzz", yeah, I can relate to that and think we can do it with any aspect of our experience, drug-related or not. It seems to me the problem doesn't so much lie with drugs as the way our egos work and our constant need for something real, secure, to convince ourselves our experiences are valid.
Another writer: (Dadaji) " With use, even the finest things become dull and boing".
Perhaps your initial experiences were valid: perhaps trying to repeat them got, chasing it, got in the way? Any thoughts?
 
 
Papess
13:43 / 26.09.02
One has to know that if they are doing a drug on a continual basis, to some degree at least, they are not in control of their use of it. Not being in control of one's self means that you are not using your own will.

No will> no magick> no enlightenment.

Why?

Because when you die, you no longer have the body to help create the chemical reaction that happens when you take drugs. Err, you're dead, after all. If you cannot produce the same effects with your own mind, you are basically screwed at that point. This all assuming of course that we at least have a mind in the hereafter.

*channelling soup-nazi*
No enlightenment for you!! HA! Next customer!

Note: This is my 777th post!....cooool!

~MT
 
 
cusm
13:46 / 26.09.02
The problem with drugs is that they not only offer you an altered perspective which can be useful in spiritual exploration, but they are also mad fun and feel good. It is easy to become more interested in the high than where it can take you. In our culture, what we might take for spiritual use is still more commonly used for recreation. That's hard to get past, and for good reason as the drugs we commonly have access to in an urban setting are really high in the "feel good" department.

The Shaman on the other hand, never uses his drugs for fun. They are sacred, a sacriment of divinity. They are respected, and understood as a tool to communicate with the spirit. They are never taken as recreation, only and always as a part of work. It is that ethic that makes their use safe for spirit. It is the culture which supports that these drugs are sacred magick that makes this view possible to maintain.

Our culture knows of drugs as recreation and abuse. Thus, we tend to use them for such. Even if we want to use them as a shaman would, we still understand their recreational benefits, and so can slip to that side of it as well, being used by the drug rather than usin the drug. Thus, they are dangerous for us, because we do not respect them.

As well, the difference in druge available makes a difference. Powerful ethenogens are not at all the same as something like LSD. They are not fun, nor are they likely to be used for recreation. They create an experience so powerfully changing that it can only be used for work. You can not deny the experience when it submerges your entire reality. Of course, again, if you are not skilled in the shamanic uses of the experience, you can easily fail to get anything out of even a DMT experience other than a "wild trip, man".

As for myself, I suppose I am a product of our decadent age as I do like to have the fun *and* the spiritual experience at once if I can. I mean, if you could, why not
 
 
gravitybitch
14:22 / 26.09.02
Hmmm... Your post kind of begs the question of "Why are drugs fun?"

There are two aspects to this - one is the lab-verifiable chemsitry that demonstrates that drugs can imitate or stimulate various neurotransmitters, and the other is the appeal of being in a different "reality." Are these the same thing? What about the folks who distrust any ecstatic experience, no matter the inspiration? Are they just wired differently, or is there something else going on??
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
14:33 / 26.09.02
I find that those who are opposed from drug use in a spiritual sense, claiming that these states are somehow lesser or not as "real" (a supposition that seems diametrically out of line with the very point of the search for meaning anyway), seem A-okay with prescription drugs that grant certain abilities (ie, attention, emotional-stability, etc.), and yes, often the inverse is the case as well. I take what is perhaps the extropian view that just about any voluntary body modification you could take that makes your life closer to what you would want or need it to be is just fine. Obviously, when what you need is no more complex than just having that modification to feel "normal" or when you're succumbing to superficial expectations of behavior or appearance, thusly taking any solid sense of self out of the mix, then you're letting others shape you into their ideal, not your own. Par example, I am beginning to visibly lose my hair. Right now, this can be easily disguised, but in, say, five years, it won't be as easy, and in 10 years I could look like my father. I *could* take Rogaine or one of those other treatments that are dangerous to pregnant women, but really, I just don't feel the need. That could change tomorrow, but I doubt it will, nor anytime soon, if at all. It's just a part of who I am, and not a terribly important one at that.

But to the issue at hand, sometimes spiritual or magickal pursuits require that you get yanked out of your complacent expectations of the mundane into something a bit less readily apparent to gleam some wisdom that you mightn't be able to acquire via any other means. Myself, I've not done any hallucinagens in nearly 4 years, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't, just that I've not needed their use lately or had the proper context in which to do so. Responsible use can't be faulted by any legitimate argument, and thus that is what I practice, all to the more meaningful use of such when it is on the agenda.
 
 
cusm
14:34 / 26.09.02
Well, most of the "fun" from what I've seen comes from heightened levels of seratonin and dopamine (endorphins) which create euphoria, bliss, and heightened abilities to process information. They feel good. Duh. Speed is fun. Coke, Ecstacy, Meth, Riddalin etc all do this. LSD activates your seratonin receptors, in effect acting as if you were operating under higher levels of seratonin creating again a happy buzz in addition to the psychedelic effects. Oh, and the psychedelic effects are neat, which is its own kind of fun, too. Least of all, exploring new levels of consciousness is entertaining in itself, as it can be considered a form of play. Mushrooms also cause euphoria and bliss. Pot causes euphoria in addition to its psychedelic effects. Opiates flood you with dopamine, causing high levels of bliss. Alcohol relaxes tensions and removes inhibitions. N02 makes that funny WaWa effect with everything which is neat (though can also be used as an excellent meditation aid for its dissociative effects). Ketamine causes bliss, in addition to its disassociative effects. Even DXM (which is an opiate derivitave) can cause bliss.

Have I illustrated a pattern here yet?
 
 
wonderful wino
16:27 / 26.09.02
Don Juan say...the white man goes into his church and talks TO god...but the shaman goes into his tent and smokes a peice of the firmament and talks WITH god.

Drugs are an ally, tool, vehicle for revolution. You know, REVOLUTION?
 
 
gravitybitch
21:20 / 26.09.02
I thought I'd acknowledged the role of neurotransmitters sufficiently...

Let me reword my question - rather than "Are these the same thing?" let's try "Is there a difference between what we experience and the chemical changes in our brains?" Is there a difference between "mind" and "brain"? Are the people who experience ecstatic religious states just having a really good trip?
 
 
cusm
01:14 / 27.09.02
That's tricky ground, iszabelle. The experience and the chemical change happen at once. We experience through the chemical change. The question is, does the chemical change cause the experience, or the experience caus the chemical change?

Time magazine ran an article a ways back where they studied brain scans of someone putting themself into a state of transcendental zen. It was interesting, as when they reached deep levels of meditation, the parts of the brain responsible for perception of space and time basicly shut off, handily explaining the sensations of eternity experienced in these states. The question remains though, as it does for other experiences: Was the experience caused by the brain change, or the brain change caused as a means to process the experience?

The only answer I can give for that sort of question is simply, "yes."
 
 
gravitybitch
03:30 / 27.09.02
Yeah, I've read articles on the "Godspot" research.... and I'm familiar with the experience of people "sharing trips" on some drugs.

Personally, I've never met Lady Salvia or McKenna's mushroom saucers or DMT machine elves, but I've had experience with what you could call totemic drug-specific imagery that matches the experience of folks I was with at the time. I'd have to vote for a shared alternate reality over a "collusional hallucination" built from suggestion, as we didn't match up stories until after people were back and grounded... Of course, if you want to posit telepathy (and have a chemical explanation for that) to explain a shared experience that we all shared nonverbally, be my guest. My best guess is that we were sharing the experience of a different non-physical "reality."

For some of this, like consciousness itself, I'm not entirely sure there's a strictly chemical explanation....
 
 
Papess
02:37 / 28.09.02
cusm wrote:
Least of all, exploring new levels of consciousness is entertaining in itself, as it can be considered a form of play.

That is a great attitude cusm! If drugs are used in a balance of work and play, fuck, why not?

I think it is really important to be able use some sound judgement though, so that you will know when your tool turns into a weapon of self-destruction. When is that point exactly?

MT
 
 
Rev. Wright
10:59 / 28.09.02
Not wishing to seem obvious, but this is well worth a check.

And of course not to forget Mr Leary

"Acid is not for every brain - only the healthy, happy, wholesome, handsome, hopeful, humorous, high-velocity should seek these experiences. This elitism is totally self-determined.
Unless you are self-confident, self-directed, self-selected, please abstain."

St. Timothy
 
 
cusm
18:21 / 30.09.02
When is that point exactly?

Heh. If there were a simple answer to that one, abuse wouldn't be such a problem, would it? I mean, I can say that the point is when the damage you are doing to yourself outweighs the benefits you receive from the experience, but that doesn't help someone in the middle of it. Chances are, you won't notice when you cross that line, as you are crossing it because you have lost the necessary level of self awareness to spot that you are damaging yourself.

Have friends. Trust your friends. When your friends tell you, "dude, you're fucked up, maybe you should chill with that shit," listen to them. You can't always trust your perceptions if what you are doing is altering your perceptions, after all. If you could know that you are abusing yourself, it wouldn't really be abuse as you would still be in control, even if you were harming yourself. For instance, I've gone on purposfully destructive binges before (such as with coke) just for the experience of it, to see how much it would hurt, but because I was in control (and set start and stop times that I kept to)I was able to stop before I actually hurt myself or decide that this is what I want to do on a daily basis now and thus become an addict. Note that an alcoholic will always claim to be in control, but they won't stop, either. If you can't stop, you've lose control.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:28 / 01.10.02
Very good points, cusm. Unfortunately, the way drugs are evolving these days, it's getting harder and harder to tell when you are not in control. With crack cocain, you smoke just once and ten minutes later you need some more or you're going to hurt someone. You start picking white stuff off the ground just in case it might be a rock. I'm serious about this. One time users become addicts. I've seen it happen more times than I'd care to admit.

And have you heard about these "yabbos"? I don't think they've reached America yet, but it's more addictive than crack and can be smoked, snorted, or popped in it's pill form.

No one is saying drugs aren't risky. But like I noted earlier, they can get you somewhere else fuckin' fast. Treat 'em like explosives: always, always be careful, and try to work with professionals.
 
 
iconoplast
18:49 / 01.10.02
"Note that an alcoholic will always claim to be in control, but they won't stop, either. If you can't stop, you've lose control. "

Just as a factual aside, this isn't entirely true. Alcoholics can stop drinking for prolonged periods of time. Furthermore, even after you stop drinking, you're still an alcoholic.

And, if the only way to know you're allowed to do drugs (that is, you're in control) is not to do them... when's it okay to do them? I mean - nobody does drugs all the time. Everyone sobers up / dries out / comes down sometimes. How often do you have to abstain to maintain the certainty that you are, indeed, in control? How do you know you're not just claiming you're in control?

And, er... Arguments about the danger of drugs aside, what's the advantage to continued use? Is there more waiting after your first LSD trip, or are we talking just, once you've done it, you know where drugs can take you. Now go get there on your own?
 
 
cusm
20:53 / 01.10.02
The thing with repeated use is, what at first was an awakening experience of something completely new later becomes a way to reach a predectable state of mind. Once you know where it takes you, it becomes something familiar. That's when the drug stops teaching you directly, and you start using the drug as a tool to get what you want out of it. At least with psychedelics, experience gives you more control over the experience. There is a diminishing returns on one hand, but on the other you are more in control over it, so it depends more on what you are doing with it than the drug itself.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
21:13 / 01.10.02
can someone please define this "you" that keeps popping up from the "Get there on your own" crowd? cuz i'm really not sure who you're talking about there.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
01:50 / 02.10.02
How to Handle Doubters
...it's really quite simple. Whenever you hear anyone sounding off on internal freedom and conciousness-expanding foods and drugs, whether pro or con, check out these questions:

1. Is your expert talking from direct experience, or simply repeating cliches? Theologians and intellectuals often deprecate "experience" in favor of fact and concept. This classic debate is falsely labeled. Most often it becomes a case of "experience" vs. "inexperience".

...

7. If he is against what he calls "artificial methods of illumination," ask him what constitutes the natural. Words? Rituals? Tribal customs? Alkaloids? Psychedelic vegetables?

8. If he is against biochemical assistance, where does he draw the line? Does he use nicotine? alcohol? penicillin? vitamins? convential sacremental substances?

9. If your advisor is against LSD, what is he for? If he forbids you the psychedelic key to revelation, what does he offer you instead?

from The Politics of Ecstacy by Timothy Leary

The rest can be found at How to Handle Doubters
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply