I get either depressed or angry (and often both) when focusing on the philosophical absurdity of substance prohibition, so I have decided to take a break from that irritating topic for a few minutes and to write a short essay instead on the philosophy of psychedelic drug effects. To be specific, I wish to address the question of why the world seems so new and surprising to those who are under the influence of such medicines. This has, I suggest, everything to do with Immanuel Kant's categories and the forms of Socrates.
With apologies to John Locke, our minds are clearly not blank slates (tabla rasas) when we arrive in the world, or if they are, they do not remain so for long. Consider how the merest 2- or 3-year-old is aware that any dog is a dog -- despite the fact that dogs vary so wildly in attributes. In fact, a toddler will understand that a two-dimensional rendering of a dog is a dog. We clearly see the world via rule-based understandings, based on preexisting categories or forms. Otherwise, a child would have to have his or her concept of "dog" updated by adults time and time again after encountering diverse examples of the species. And so the parent has no need to say things like: "See, honey? That schnauzer is just as much a dog as that Great Dane!" Or, "See, honey? These lines on this paper are what we call a 2-D rendering of the dog that we can also see in real life!" The parents can save their breath. The kids already know that a dog is a dog is a dog. They know thanks to their possession of a built-in rule-book on this topic.
We can hypothesize then that at least some of the seemingly bizarre experiences of a psychedelic voyage result from the sudden abeyance of such rules. Under the influence of the drug, we are no longer constrained to see that pile of fur as a dog -- but rather as a carpet or as jungle foliage or as oscillating tendrils of some great sea monster. In short, we are constrained -- or rather freed -- to think creatively in our drugged state whereas we are constrained to think practically -- i.e., with a utilitarian focus -- in a so-called "sober" state.
Ten Tweets
against the hateful war on US
Scientists are not the experts on psychoactive medicines. The experts are painters and artists and spiritualists -- and anyone else who simply wants to be all they can be in life. Scientists understand nothing of such goals and aspirations.
A law proposed in Colorado in February 2024 would have criminalized positive talk about drugs online. What? The world is on the brink of nuclear war because of hate-driven politics, and I can be arrested for singing the praises of empathogens?
A Pennsylvanian politician now wants the US Army to "fight fentanyl." The guy is anthropomorphizing a damn drug! No wonder pols don't want to spend money on education, because any educated country would laugh a superstitious guy like that right out of public office.
If I want to use the kind of drugs that have inspired entire religions, fight depression, or follow up on the research of William James into altered states, I should not have to live in fear of the DEA crashing down my door and shouting: "GO! GO! GO!"
Here's the first step in the FDA process for evaluating a psychoactive drug:
Ignore all glaringly obvious benefits
AI is inherently plagiaristic technology. It tells us: "Hey, guys, look what I can do!" -- when it should really be saying, "Hey, guys, look how I stole all your data and repackaged it in such a way as to make it appear that I am the genius, not you!"
People say shrooms should not be used by those with a history of "mental illness." But that's one of the greatest potential benefits of shrooms! (They cured Stamets' teenage stuttering.) Some folks place safety first, but if I did that, I'd die long before using mother nature.
The Petpedia website says that "German Shepherds need to have challenging jobs such as searching for drugs." How about searching for prohibitionists instead?
What prohibitionists forget is that every popular but dangerous activity, from horseback riding to drug use, will have its victims. You cannot save everybody, and when you try to do so by law, you kill far more than you save, meanwhile destroying democracy in the process.
It's funny to hear fans of sacred plants indignantly insisting that their meds are not "drugs." They're right in a way, but actually NO substances are "drugs." Calling substances "drugs" is like referring to striking workers as "scabs." It's biased terminology.
Scientists are not the experts on psychoactive medicines. The experts are painters and artists and spiritualists -- and anyone else who simply wants to be all they can be in life. Scientists understand nothing of such goals and aspirations.