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 1 '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 234 focus -- in a so-called "sober" state.
ECT is like euthanasia. Neither make sense in the age of prohibition.
There are neither "drugs" nor "meds" as those terms are used today. All substances have potential good uses and bad uses. The terms as used today carry value judgements, as in meds good, drugs bad.
In 2017 alone, 1,632,921 drug arrests were made with 85.5 percent of those solely for possession. -- War On Us
The MindMed company (makers of LSD Lite) tell us that euphoria and visions are "adverse effects": that's not science, that's an arid materialist philosophy that does not believe in spiritual transcendence.
The drug war controls the very way that we are allowed to see the world. The Drug War is thus a meta-injustice, not just a handful of bad legal statutes.
There will always be people who don't use drugs wisely, just as there are car drivers who don't drive wisely, and rock climbers who fall to their death. America needs to grow up and accept this, while ending prohibition and teaching safe use.
Drug warriors have harnessed the perfect storm. Prohibition caters to the interests of law enforcement, psychotherapy, Big Pharma, demagogues, puritans, and materialist scientists, who believe that consciousness is no big "whoop" and that spiritual states are just flukes.
In "The Book of the Damned," Charles Fort shows how science damns (i.e. excludes) facts that it cannot assimilate into a system of knowledge. Fort could never have guessed, however, how thoroughly science would eventually "damn" all positive facts about "drugs."
This is the problem with trusting science to tell us about drugs. Science means reductive materialism, whereas psychoactive drug use is all about mind and the human being as a whole. We need pharmacologically savvy shaman to guide us, not scientists.
If MAPS wants to make progress with MDMA they should start "calling out" the FDA for judging holistic medicines by materialist standards, which means ignoring all glaringly obvious benefits.
Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.
(up)