Negative connotations of psychedelic pseudo-science

[melquiades]

Psychedelic pseudo-science is really fun to say

So I was reading this thread, different drugs scenes disliking others
There was a fair amount of hate against psych users.

talking about "entheogens" and how I just understood the way the world works becaues of "Ego death" makes me want to puke, then take a hit of a meth and drive a crowbar though the persons eyesocket.

but I'll do a bit of LSD or MDMA for the lulz...but only the lulz/euphoria/pretty colors and not the faggotry PLUR/spritualism shit.

Also, people that consider LSD as some sort of sacrament, no, it's not. Fuck you. I've experienced "ego death" or whatever you want to call it and it was a nightmare. Why would I want to take a chemical that has so much control over me?

Personally I will do almost anything but psychedelics and their users are starting to get a bit over the top, when I go into PD they put fucked up ideas/thoughts in my head which arent real but feel so real while tripping. I used to love acid and psych's but I cant handle them anymore.

I don't like the psychedelic drug users who make claims of the "mind expansion, far out spiritual experiences, etc."

A lot of psychedelic users frustrate me with exaggerated claims of tripping's benefits, but I know that those drugs have helped me a lot to understand myself and how to interact with the world in a positive way.

It's all about the individual and how they allow the drugs to affect their likability.

Please forgive me for my psychedelic noob rambling.

I also just recently finished reading "Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic journey into contemporary shamanism", and I was kind of annoyed by the pseudo-science there too.

I guess I feel more aware of this because of my own background in biochemistry. Even though we can walk around with the hypothesis that there are other worlds with machine elves, or spiritual landscapes, it's not really provable outside of tripping. (I'm not, however, saying that those metaphors aren't a good way to explain some of the things that we learn though?)

What we're doing is just fucking with our senses. Opening up perception! Letting the floodgates open and not filtering out everything. And, maybe, doing that allows us to notice the subtleties in our mind when we're sober?

Kinda like the static- I can notice the static if I make myself.

Is there any way we can 'reform' psychedelic thought to be more accepted by others?

(And of course, if you have better "realist" theories about psychedelic experiences, let them loose!)

 

[morbiddoctor]

IMO we don't have to reform our beliefs or opinions for anyone. I believe and feel what I want to. I don't care if someone else has a problem with accepting it. I'm a human being and have that right. I use psychedelics because I believe they can be of benefit to me in a spiritual, emotional, grounding, thought provoking way. Before I used them this way I too used them for 'lulz and pretty colors' but they got boring and I abused them. Now I hardly use them but when I do they are much more appreciated. Honestly I don't post in the other forums because I don't like the mindset of alot of those people and getting insulted because of my beliefs is counterproductive and unnecessary.

 

[melquiades]

Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive

Let's ask the question another way: "Is there a different way of phrasing our psychedelic discoveries to be more accepted by others?"

 

[solistus]

Most psychedelic users don't believe machine elves, etc. are literally real. The talk about entheogens, ego death as a spiritual experience, etc. are very different from those pseudoscience theories.

Personally, I find the "how dare you find psychedelics meaningful or interesting in ways I don't fuck you I wanna take meth and get violent" crowd far more annoying than the "far out hippie" crowd, but I stay away from both. You don't have to believe in Terrence McKenna's pet theories and the like to think that psychedelics are more interesting and meaningful than "euphoria and pretty colors for the lulz."

Aside from empirically falsifiable 'pet theories' some psychedelic users foster, do you personally see a problem with the things those quotes are criticizing? Frankly, they sound like a bunch of ignorant and angry jackasses, for the most part, at least the ones who are not only dismissive but openly hostile to 'stereotypical' drug users.

I also note a few of them who seem to hostilely reject psychedelics and their users because they can't or don't want to face the more subjectively challenging parts of the experience - ego death as a nightmare with no positive value is a pretty clear sign of this to me, someone wasn't prepared for the experience and needs to justify their own machismo bullshit surrounding "drugs" by blaming the compounds and their users for their own inability to handle an intense psychedelic trip. It's like if I smoked some pot once, got a panic attack, then began angrily denouncing all cannabis users as masochists who clearly just like to give themselves panic attacks.

edit: as the trials and tribulations of a certain repeatedly temp-banned recent 'addition' to PD probably shows, most of us here have only so much tolerance for the really nonsensical stuff, too. That said, anyone who is that hostile toward an entire subculture because some members of it hold silly pseudo-scientific beliefs is pretty asinine. People who insist their experiences with drugs are the only (or at least the most) "valid" ones and feel the need to control the decisions others make about them, whether arrogant pseudoscientific hippies lecturing people about how they should only use the "entheogen" drugs and only the "correct" traditional way, or angry tweakers telling me my psychedelics are fucking worthless and so am I for taking them because this asshole had a bad trip once and didn't learn from it.

 

[morbiddoctor]

No worries sir, you're ok

I think the subject matter psyhedelic users involve themselves with certainly is a little out there to most people. And yes most users dint necessarily believe most of the discoveries we make whilst journeying. Machine elves, aliens etc are fun. They are archetypes that help ourselves teach ourselves something about ourselves. they just appear to us as something easier to undestand. And why would we just ignore that kind of magic?

Much of the spiritualism involved with psychedelics can be achieved without The use of them. Call me a hippy or whatever but isn't love and respecting your fellow man something that was around before altered states?

I'll admit I am preachy when it comes to my discoveries but I'm also passionate. I don't hate people for not agreeing. I just want them to see things from my point if view so I'm understood.

 

[solistus]

"Call me a hippy or whatever but isn't love and respecting your fellow man something that was around before altered states? "

Not if you believe the psilocin-guided evolution theory of how humans became conscious - if that's true, there have never been humans "before altered states" Speaking of pseuo-science, lulz...

 

[Listening]

...I'm not, however, saying that those metaphors aren't a good way to explain some of the things that we learn though?...

I think this line in your post indirectly exposes the real issue. You sound like a reasonable person and you understand that most revelations are indeed metaphors: aesthetically pleasing and compelling ideas that map impressively onto real world phenomenon. As a scientist you probably know that a lot of the great revolutionary scientific theories were exactly that.

However, there do indeed seem to be a disproportionate number of people in the psychedelic community who start confusing the line between metaphor and the "no man, it actually IS like that" way of thinking about compelling ideas. Don't get me wrong, I've heard some so-called kooks with amazingly insightful ideas. However, they then lead themselves astray by trusting their own thoughts just a bit too much: a dangerous way of thinking that leads more to a world of the imagination than anything concrete in the way of enlightenment and such. I don't think it leads to long term satisfaction in the world either, but maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, it's all very fuzzy and I apologize if I insulted anyone in the above paragraph. I truly believe that in order for a human being to be fully intelligent/alive/awake, they must exploit both amazing abilities of the brain: to imagine (or see the world from a new psychedelic perspective) and to self-correct (think "integration" of a psychedelic experience in the weeks after you trip). Everyone (including non-psychedelic users) does both of these to some extent, but some people fall much farther in one direction than the other.

Your post is addressing the stereotype that psychedelic users fall on the wishy-washy imaginarium side of the spectrum, and I don't see how anyone who has been around a sufficient cross-section of psychedelic users can really believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I'm not scared that I (or many others) will fall into it despite psychedelic use.

Maybe it's just the person and not the drug, but it sure seems as if psychedelics can bring it out.

Ah but for the savior of critical thinking and self-correction. Enlightenment awaits.

 

[greenmeanies]

I also note a few of them who seem to hostilely reject psychedelics and their users because they can't or don't want to face the more subjectively challenging parts of the experience - ego death as a nightmare with no positive value is a pretty clear sign of this to me, someone wasn't prepared for the experience and needs to justify their own machismo bullshit surrounding "drugs" by blaming the compounds and their users for their own inability to handle an intense psychedelic trip. It's like if I smoked some pot once, got a panic attack, then began angrily denouncing all cannabis users as masochists who clearly just like to give themselves panic attacks.

well-put. the best defense you can bring against these jackasses is to simply ignore them. perhaps sometime in the future their minds will become activated, but for the present time they will resist any rational interaction you may try to have with them.

it is necessary for some to be in the dark, so that they may seek the light. 8)




but enough of the psychedelic psycho-babble i am also turned off by the pseudoscience, because it is completely unprovable. i have experienced certain feelings (entity contact, telepathy, time travel etc) during intense trips that i swore were more real than reality. however these things cannot be brought back OUT of the rabbit hole, and offer zero predictive capability in the land of the living.

true science offers predictive capability-- i can predict with 99% confidence that 1kg of water requires 1kcal of energy to raise in temperature by 1C. this can be repeated at any time in any lab, regardless of the history of the water before you perform the experiment.

religious or spiritual experiences can be incredibly powerful for changing the mood or life outlook of a subjective observer, but usually have zero meaning outside of their specific context (the person who experienced the event, combined with all of his/her past memories and history)

this is why the psychedelic experience can be so profound yet so enigmatic. it offers your emotional/spiritual mind the promise of some kind of answer or solution, while obscuring the fact that (a la Doug Adams) we never knew the question in the first place.

imo, the psychedelic experience does not need to be tainted by psychiatric pseudoscience because there is still so much about our own spirits. psychedelia is firmly in the realm of philosophy because it brings to mind every dichotomy-- good/evil, light/dark, self/other etc. do these things even exist? or MUST they exist because they are dual? does love exist without hate? does antimatter exist without matter? do i exist without you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Extreme extroverts vs. extreme introverts. Personally I find a combination of sorts (and not just an in-between "compromise") of the two philosophies to be best.

Drugs are just catalysts. They won't morph your core/low-level identity; perhaps alter yourself at the "high-level", but they can only push yourself towards things you have some sort of underlying affinity for (which is pretty much your "core" self).

imo, the psychedelic experience does not need to be tainted by psychiatric pseudoscience because there is still so much about our own spirits. psychedelia is firmly in the realm of philosophy because it brings to mind every dichotomy-- good/evil, light/dark, self/other etc. do these things even exist? or MUST they exist because they are dual? does love exist without hate? does antimatter exist without matter? do i exist without you?

Any hypothetical "thing" that can't be defined in terms of what it is not, especially if it lacks a direct antithesis, can't exist, at least not relative to our way of perception and understanding. If you ask me. I have some in-depth ideas about things like this that I've thought about even since before doing psychedelics.

 

[morbiddoctor]

HahaHa solistus. I forgot about that one.

 

[Solipsis]

sol
its why they call it pseudocybin right?

 

[Roger&Me]

true science offers predictive capability

This right here is the key to understanding the bizarre relationship between science and psychedelia. Psychedelics are anti-predictive and enigmatic: a proper understanding of their significance repels itself from the scientific method like oil from water.

 

[RGB]

This right here is the key to understanding the bizarre relationship between science and psychedelia. Psychedelics are anti-predictive and enigmatic: a proper understanding of their significance repels itself from the scientific method like oil from water.

I agree that psychedelia and science are difficult to reconcile, but I don't think it's because they're inherently different. Both science and psychedelic experiences rely on observation of reality, and an underlying assumption that we as human beings witness things in roughly the same way. If you could find some common ground between people's psychedelic experiences and repeatedly produce the same phenomena, I imagine that you could build a science out of it.

The problem in my opinion is that psychedelia is rife with confounding factors. Everything about a person and their environment contributes to the experience, making the result extremely chaotic. You may be able to pull out common threads, but you simply can't approach the rigor of examining a single subject (e.g. reality) and controlling your variables in the way that you can with more traditional sciences. Psychology's a great example of a field with similar difficulties and also a similarly negative popular opinion.

Also, the thread that the OP posted has bigger problems than hating psychedelic users, heh. 8)

 

[The Smoking Man]

I agree that psychedelia and science are difficult to reconcile, but I don't think it's because they're inherently different. Both science and psychedelic experiences rely on observation of reality, and an underlying assumption that we as human beings witness things in roughly the same way. If you could find some common ground between people's psychedelic experiences and repeatedly produce the same phenomena, I imagine that you could build a science out of it.

The problem in my opinion is that psychedelia is rife with confounding factors. Everything about a person and their environment contributes to the experience, making the result extremely chaotic. You may be able to pull out common threads, but you simply can't approach the rigor of examining a single subject (e.g. reality) and controlling your variables in the way that you can with more traditional sciences. Psychology's a great example of a field with similar difficulties and also a similarly negative popular opinion.

Well, one of my biggest problems with psychology (and closely related fields) is all the chicken-or-egg mixups and similar issues. One could be quick to say that x is [necessarily] an effect of y, when it could actually be that x is the cause of y, or even both are true as a "vicious cycle" so to speak.

true science offers predictive capability-- i can predict with 99% confidence that 1kg of water requires 1kcal of energy to raise in temperature by 1C. this can be repeated at any time in any lab, regardless of the history of the water before you perform the experiment.

Well, it's more deterministic than predictable, so long as chaos theory holds. Oh, and that example is a little unfair as calories and celsius are relative to water.

 

[Roger&Me]

^All quantities are relative to other quantities: a scalar must have magnitude-- and magnitude can only be measured relative to a fixed point of reference.

 

[Choronzon333]

Psychedelic pseudo-science is really fun to say

So I was reading this thread, different drugs scenes disliking others
There was a fair amount of hate against psych users.









Please forgive me for my psychedelic noob rambling.

I also just recently finished reading "Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic journey into contemporary shamanism", and I was kind of annoyed by the pseudo-science there too.

I guess I feel more aware of this because of my own background in biochemistry. Even though we can walk around with the hypothesis that there are other worlds with machine elves, or spiritual landscapes, it's not really provable outside of tripping. (I'm not, however, saying that those metaphors aren't a good way to explain some of the things that we learn though?)

What we're doing is just fucking with our senses. Opening up perception! Letting the floodgates open and not filtering out everything. And, maybe, doing that allows us to notice the subtleties in our mind when we're sober?

Kinda like the static- I can notice the static if I make myself.

Is there any way we can 'reform' psychedelic thought to be more accepted by others?

(And of course, if you have better "realist" theories about psychedelic experiences, let them loose!)

Man. Alot of people bin sippin too much haterade!

 

[RedRum OG]

its just all about what chemical gives you the inner connection with yourself. or the good visuals. or whatever the user happens to be looking for. a bad experience usually forever ruins that chemical and the idea along with it.

its 99% personal experiences that give you your opinion, not neccesarilly the drug itself.

 

[azgaza]

I only like real science; theoretical physics and I'm a great fan of neurochemistry; the only science that has to do with psychedelics was gaining a better understanding of chemistry and molecule structures and a lót of reading into the human brain and neurotransmittors, I found great acticles and pieces of writing about 5HT2a receptor antagonists (classic psychedelics), like this one:
http://www.tripzine.com/pit/html/multi-state-theory.htm

And thats the kind of science related to psychedelics that I like, how they work to as much detail as possible. Because of knowing how they work pretty well in quite some detail there's no magic to trips at all, but being a nihilist, I don't even like magic or want there to be any, that just sounds psychotic to me.

 

[Roger&Me]

I only like real science; theoretical physics

That made me LOL because 80% of theoretical physics nowadays is just a mathematical circle-jerk off on a tangent of goofy notions that are impossible to experimentally verify.

 

[Choronzon333]

That made me LOL because 80% of theoretical physics nowadays is just a mathematical circle-jerk off on a tangent of goofy notions that are impossible to experimentally verify.

me too. Theoretical physics has come under much scrutiny because it is either impossible to ever verify or impossible to veryify for a very long time if we assumed that humans actually would eventually devolop adequete technology. I mean I like theoretical physics, its cool and all, it just that alot of it isn't so much scientific as it is educated speculation