Psychedelic scepticism

[JackARoe]

^ Real love. Has to be real. I think I used the flower analogy having been in the floral business years ago. And yes, most of it serves the person's ego that sends the flowers. But the point stands. Yep, even love the fools. Hard to do for sure.

I do follow the John Hopkins studies on psychedelics. I am glad that is at least happening. The psilocybin studies and dying. That video of the people that were dying and scared who found peace after a trip as touching. I do think stuff like that is important too as well as the cluster headache studies, etc. Funny enough I was lucky enough to be a cluster sufferer growing up from my 20's - 40's. Then they stopped. I grew out of them as I had read But for years in the Spring and Fall I would awaken every other night with an ice pick pain on the side of my head wishing for death. The psilocybin treatment was not studied yet. But I do remember tripping with those cycles. I do not remember them aborting the cycles. So I can't say it helped me. But I'd rather not know and never get those headaches again. It has been 10 years. What a blessed relief to know I grew out of them. I had read that people did.

 

[Efoj]

I think you're still blaming the victim. When people say a woman wouldn't have been raped if she didn't wear a short dress after midnight, they're ignoring the rape culture and gender roles in society. When you assume psychedelics were outlawed because of Leary's interviews and influence on hippie culture, dropping-out etc, you don't mention the war on drugs that happened in the whole 20th century (a war that is, thus, much more recent than the human use of cannabis, mushrooms or ayahuasca).

I do think if Leary and company didn't exist, psychedelics would still be banned. Other drugs didn't need a Leary or a hippie/drop-out subculture to be banned: you might as well blame the rave scene for banming mdma for example.

Besides, the world is not just the USA. McKenna and all the other guys you blame (except Leary) were never well known in China, Brazil or the Philippines, but the war on drugs also happen(s)(ed) on these places.

Short answer: No. I blame the International Opium Convention (1912), the United Nations, LBJ, Nixon and Reagan much more than Leary, not to mention other guys that weren't even mainstream.

 

[Efoj]

Now if you want to read about skepticism and psychedelics, I recommend a book from the 1970s, the Illuminatus Trilogy. I quote wikipedia:


"The Illuminatus! Trilogy is a series of three novels written by Robert Sheaand Robert Anton Wilson first published in 1975. The trilogy is a satirical, postmodern, science fiction-influenced adventure story; a drug-, sex-, and magic-laden trek through a number of conspiracy theories, both historical and imaginary(...)
The trilogy was originally written between 1969 and 1971 while Wilson and Shea were both associate editors for Playboy magazine. As part of the role, they dealt with correspondence from the general public on the subject of civil liberties, much of which involved paranoid rants about imagined conspiracies."

The book mentions Huxley, Leary, the Beatles, Atlantis and everything else, and it's really funny.

Wilson's kind of agnosticism consists of never regarding any model or map of the universe with total 100% belief or total 100% denial. Of course he wouldn't say Darwin's natural selection is just as probable as Ancient Egyptian Gods... but he'd be skeptical about both.

According to Wilson's skepticism, an affirmation such as the above "Psychedelics make your personality change, that's about it. There's nothing at the end of the rabbit hole." is just as wrong as saying there's something for sure at the rabbit hole.

 

[no_id]

Interesting thread.

I was like you even before taking psychedelics, in order to increase my pre-passion for the stuff lol. Reading psychedelics masters, Mc Kenna, Leary, idea, and stuff, social construct herited from psychedelic culture, reading every bits of informations about substances.

Not too close to the beginning of my psyche journey, I had my best trip. It consisted actually of the erasing of ALL question/mindfuck/anxieties as if the simple response is that it was useless, and an EPIC moment of instant present followed for HOURS. I was like an animal. Born a second time. My feelings was like... Divine.
It didn't came from a stereotypical massive realization, but more from a discret "but why" moment, then a moment of clarity.

There is no other essence in the present moment than itself.

Is this nihilism ? Is this too extreme deconstruction of things ? Is this thinking profitable to humanity/society ? I bet not. It was, at least, really enjoyable.

Imo psychedelics are fucking great substance (at the very least the funnier way to be fucked up) and I don't negate the "connecting to yourself" aspect.

But imo people feel too indebted to psyche. From the sensation itself, from the feeling that "something/someone" gave to them the possibility to experiment that. The things that psyche make you learn at the core isn't about making a new excited new age society trying to not feeling guilty about the fact they just took a drug imo.

As of today I still feel the impact of this trip. Ive clearly less "mental obsessions" and anxieties, and (but that's not only from this trip) I am more social in some way, less neurotic.

 

[BigOlBuddhaBelly]

I'm really just asking, do you support the John's Hopkins study in psilocybin induced mystical experiences? Loathe me to paraphrase Joe Rogan, but just because you can't quantify something, doesn't mean you didn't experience it. I had my love affair with psychs too, and I honestly feel I'm past it, I still use them but the experiences are much more recreational, and also introspec(tual?) these days. No profound spritual experiences for a while.

I think I've noticed a pattern, that when someone who is relatively new to psychedelics has a very intense, profound, experience their first move is to become spiritual about it. I did it, I know others have too. So maybe if we are going to study them in a scientific setting, they should limit it to veteran users? Who won't be so quick to jump to conclusions? Or to quote Mckenna (hehe) "give in to astonishment".

These days, I'm having much more intense experiences than in years back, but words like Divine and the like aren't coming to mind, they are just much more personal, and I'm thankful for it. I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I just don't like to be so quick in calling them "delusions" back to Joe Rogan. Back when I put my profound experiences in a spritual viewpoint, I felt most at peace with myself, like ever, but there was that back-drop of holier than thou-you haven't SEEN what I've seen man, you haven't pulled back the curtain! All that bullshit.

But back on point I guess, obviously the general public is paying zero attention to that Johns Hopkin's study (even though I think they should at least be shown) https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf but do you think this is an example of an advance or a hindrance. Because at the end of the day, delusions or not, these were incredibly positive experiences for these people. I just don't see the need to deny them to express it in the way they want to.

"Based on a priori criteria, 22 of the totalgroup of 36 volunteers had a “complete” mystical experienceafter psilocybin (ten, nine, and three participants in thefirst, second, and third session, respectively) while only 4of 36 did so after methylphenidate (two participants each inthe first and second sessions)"

I know this is all over the place, I have many ideas floating around, hard for me to tie them together into something coherent

 

[Incunabula]

I think you're still blaming the victim. When people say a woman wouldn't have been raped if she didn't wear a short dress after midnight, they're ignoring the rape culture and gender roles in society. When you assume psychedelics were outlawed because of Leary's interviews and influence on hippie culture, dropping-out etc, you don't mention the war on drugs that happened in the whole 20th century (a war that is, thus, much more recent than the human use of cannabis, mushrooms or ayahuasca).

I do think if Leary and company didn't exist, psychedelics would still be banned. Other drugs didn't need a Leary or a hippie/drop-out subculture to be banned: you might as well blame the rave scene for banming mdma for example.

Besides, the world is not just the USA. McKenna and all the other guys you blame (except Leary) were never well known in China, Brazil or the Philippines, but the war on drugs also happen(s)(ed) on these places.

Short answer: No. I blame the International Opium Convention (1912), the United Nations, LBJ, Nixon and Reagan much more than Leary, not to mention other guys that weren't even mainstream.

So you think, that if Delysid had only been used in clinical settings by psychiatrists, as it was first, that it still would have been scheduled and all research locked down and banned for decades?

I think your view is rather unnuanced.

But of cause the point is rather moot. We can only speculate, how it would have been if psychedelics hadn't gotten out of the lab and into the 60ies counterculture.

 

[no_id]

What happen to psychedelics user is often bizarre cause and effect reasonning. Ive a friend wich is attributing all kind of normal realization to psyche. It can be normal in some way (not everything have the same realization), but he seem to attribute a vast array of mental stuff to his periodic ayahuasca meeting wich are kinda more mundane than he think and explainable already with his real life.

they are often thinking bizarre stuff that aren't especially bizarre considering the impact of psyche in culture. Perhaps with a core of "trying to beleive".

From 18 to 30 you are still maturing (even to 90yo I hope), every kind of realization aren't linkable to drugs you take. Drug is more something wich blur intellectualization of normal experience.

don't get me wrong, psyche are still the best thing in the world ^^

 

[TheAppleCore]

But of cause the point is rather moot. We can only speculate, how it would have been if psychedelics hadn't gotten out of the lab and into the 60ies counterculture.

It's not like we could have kept LSD contained anyway. If not for Leary, Ram Dass, McKenna et al, others would have taken their place. People consider the psychedelic experience to be sacred, divine, holy; whether they're right or wrong, this attitude is a force which cannot be suppressed.

 

[Efoj]

It's not like we could have kept LSD contained anyway. If not for Leary, Ram Dass, McKenna et al, others would have taken their place. People consider the psychedelic experience to be sacred, divine, holy; whether they're right or wrong, this attitude is a force which cannot be suppressed.

This.

Psychedelics weren't first used in the lab: shrooms, mescaline (cacti) and dmt (ayahuasca) have been considered sacred for centuries, by peoples of the mountains, of the the desert and the forest who had little or no contact with one another. There's something in their nature (or in homo sapiens's reaction to them) that makes them seem sacred.

Also your point is like saying psychedelic rock wouldn't exist without the Beatles and psychedelic cinema wouldn't either, had Kubrick not been born. The 1960's zeitgeist had other forces that made the hippie/new age culture possible, for example most post-war kids didn't want another world war so they'd abandon their father's ideas that had triggered WW2: nationalism, militarism and others... unlike the 2010's btw, but then the times they are a-changing and not necessarily for good

 

[kyt]

Over the years, I've gone from a cliche peace-love-"hippie", you know the power of crystals and aura healing. I drifted towards the occult, Thelema, ZKC, all the while dosing on multiple psychedelics and dissociatives. I used to wonder why these healing drugs were illegal. "But they put us in touch with our inner selves, they will save the world by spreading peace and love amongst all, they are revealing the secrets of the universe to me!".

I've come to see that the psychedelic sub-culture is what's making these things illegal. Psychedelics have utilititarian value. For example, cluster headaches and psilocybin. PTSD and other pathologies with MDMA or 2C-B. Addiction interruption with ibogaine or (I'll call it this in honour) yage. I believe that LSD/psilocybin did initially also have some positive effects on things like alcoholism and various neuroses. Ketamine and dissociatives are linked to relief of depression and various somatic illnesses. Cannabis has untold medical value. All of these benefits have been subsumed by the dominant new agers.

Then emerged people like Timothy Leary, Ram Daas and the like who started linking psychedelics to religion (the Old Way imo) and political revolution. We have Terence McKenna (I'm a huge fan, he is eloquent in his delivery of utter nonsense) encountering machine elves, binding harmine to his brothers DNA, urging users to take high doses in the dark. We have John Lily, riding his bicycle, talking to dolphins and receiving information from some entity organising coincidences on earth. Rick Strassman postulating DMT playing a role in reincarnation and external entity contact (set and setting brother).

In my opinion, these guys did a grave injustice to the utilitarian value of these substances. I don't really think that even one of the above claims has been demonstrated. The thereaputic benefits have been- so why are these things still on the fringe? Is it the community keeping them that way?

Please note that I am not dismissing the spiritual aspect of these drugs. But, I think that for humans, life IS spiritual anyway without drugs. Conflating psychedelics with religion, social revolution and unverifiable, unscientific dogma means that the mainstream will continue to reject these substances which I think we can conclude do have real, functional benefit.

I sincerely do not wish to insult anyone who believes in anything. I think new age beliefs are mainly bullshit, but I am all for people believing in whatever they want. But I do think that this sort of ideology has done an injustice to those who could have benefited from the therapeutic effects of these drugs. If we really think psychedelics are valuable, why do we devalue them with nonsense/woo? I believe the psychedelic scene is at least partially responsible for this continuing prohibition. Like it or not, society doesn't have much of a place for crystal healing, machine elves and aura cleansing because these things don't exist, they are not demonstrably true and should be rejected by those who think. I wish to debunk the unfounded and insubstantial allegations made about psychedelics so they can be used beneficailly by more than just just an alternative fringe.

I value peace and love, I don't value nonsense. I love you people because we are all suffering together I want us to suffer less.

Mods/Admin - Quote seems to be broken by the heart emojii.

This is my 3rd time writing this post so excuse the brevity...
OP:

I agree, the over-evangelising of psychedelics by self proclaimed revolutionaries has damaged the way psychedelics and their uses are perceived by the majority of society.

The recent upsurge of credible academic research is great and the press portraying it in a positive light all the better.

Thankfully the fervour of the 60s and 70s is over and the backlash is dying down. Hopefully we are on track to a more accepting future.

 

[drseltsam]

Interesting discussion.

It goes without saying that it is up to every individual to belief in whatever the person wants. Personally I find the belief that a chemical could be a doorway to an other dimension rather obscure. There are good models of what is going on in the brain and for me they are way more likely to explain than to say that the people are actually experience something super natural.

Why are drugs outlawed? That is a question that is not easy to answer for me. Personally I think most of the stuff in this thread is close to a conspiracy theory.

The state has many tasks to carry out. One of it is to protect its people from harm. When the state does this, it justifies it existence and gains popularity. The people in power gets reelected and the people who vote for them have the feeling that someone cares for them. This explains a lot when it comes to the war on drugs. The state protects its people from something that is perceived as dangerous and nearly everyone wins. The victims of this move are the people who consume the drugs. I guess in the war on drugs Nixon wanted some of them to be victims to push his agenda but for the majority they were just a minority that was not considered important to win elections.

I know that the model I explain above is not popular. People want to be important and it makes people who consume psychedelics an unimportant group who was just forgotten and not close to break the order of society. People want to be victims.

A word about MAPS. I think they are fantastic. At least parts of them did not fall for the obscure conspiracy theories but actually went and try to prove scientifically that certain drugs have value. This is the way to go. If you can't prove it scientifically you aren't better than the people who promote homeopathy or write against vaccinations.

A word about sacred chemicals: As said earlier it is up to everyone to choose a religion and take chemicals to life it. But forcing these chemicals in this religious context will not help in getting them legal or reduce their harm. We as the western world will have to develop our own practice how to handle them and how to incorporate them to get positive effects. For me, just taking rituals from other cultures I do not understand and I did now grow up in will not help.

 

[Incunabula]

It's not like we could have kept LSD contained anyway. If not for Leary, Ram Dass, McKenna et al, others would have taken their place. People consider the psychedelic experience to be sacred, divine, holy; whether they're right or wrong, this attitude is a force which cannot be suppressed.

Yes, you're probably right. Which is why I said the point was kind of moot. It's kind of pointless to speculate how things would have been or not been, if this or that hadn't happened.

 

[Xorkoth]

The Johns Hopkins study link was great, thanks for posting it (whoever it was), I read basically the entire paper. This quote really got me:

Thirty-three percent of the
volunteers rated the psilocybin experience as being the
single most spiritually significant experience of his or her
life, with an additional 38% rating it to be among the top
five most spiritually significant experiences. In written comments
about their answers, the volunteers often described
aspects of the experience related to a sense of unity without
content (pure consciousness) and/or unity of all things

My own first experience with psychedelics (which was mushrooms) was one of the most significant and transformative experiences of my life. It makes sense to me why people like Leary, McKenna and Ram Dass appeared. The fact of the matter is, psychedelics can be deeply profound and transformative for many people. I think that research like that study and others that are happening now will inevitably reveal the utility of psychedelics.

 

[pupnik]

I hope the studies reveal more about psychedelic and normal states of mind,
the fallout of persistent scientific investigation implies a cornucopia of utilities.

 

[burn out]

I don't know if I like the tone of the OP. Psychedelics offer a personal experience. Personal experiences are by nature, not quantifiable or demonstrable. If I take a psychedelic and have a revelation about how reality works (often through the breaking down of some personal illusion I was blinding myself with) then just because I can't demonstrate it or it sounds crazy from the point of view of consensus reality, in no way means it is less valuable to me.

The assumption behind the OPs statements is that consensus reality is the real reality. As far as I am concerned, that is not demonstrable.

 

[protovack]

I completely, respectfully, F****** disagree.

I like the fact that psychedelics are on the fringe. It means we are into something real.
It would be really sad to see LSD patented and marketed by Eli-Lilly "Delsyd" for treatment of XYZ bullshit diagnoses under care of psychiatrist only.
I am so glad we don't live in that world.
Psychedelics belong in the jungle, the desert, growing wild, harvested, and consumed in TUNE with human societies, innately connected with the spiritual, the un-provable, the non-empiric.
The guy who did the early western scientific DMT research, said he felt "weird" while doing the research, almost like he was a dispassionate observer and he wasn't actually helping anyone.

You have some valid points about psychedelic users coming up with pseudo-scientific theories and the like. But I think that's the minority.
And non-psychedelic users come up with the same crap too.

 

[burn out]

I completely, respectfully, F****** disagree.

I like the fact that psychedelics are on the fringe. It means we are into something real.
It would be really sad to see LSD patented and marketed by Eli-Lilly "Delsyd" for treatment of XYZ bullshit diagnoses under care of psychiatrist only.
I am so glad we don't live in that world.
Psychedelics belong in the jungle, the desert, growing wild, harvested, and consumed in TUNE with human societies, innately connected with the spiritual, the un-provable, the non-empiric.
The guy who did the early western scientific DMT research, said he felt "weird" while doing the research, almost like he was a dispassionate observer and he wasn't actually helping anyone.

You have some valid points about psychedelic users coming up with pseudo-scientific theories and the like. But I think that's the minority.
And non-psychedelic users come up with the same crap too.

That's how I feel. I think it would be a loss if psychedelics were reduced to something that fit into consensus reality and marketed as a treatment for cluster headaches or depression. How boring. Not that I don't think we should explore using them as a treatment for those conditions, but I prefer to see them as gifts from nature. Different people will naturally appreciate different aspects of nature's gifts. Some people might be satisfied if they can find relief from cluster headaches or depression in the magic mushroom. Others might be more inspired by the mystical effects and come up with wild insights about the nature of reality. Still others might enjoy the sensory enhancements or artistic sentiment most of all. The world has room for all of these different kinds of people. I don't see what the problem with it is.

And I think a big reason they are illegal is because we as a culture are afraid of nature. We live in a false, sterilized version of reality that cannot last but we are terrified of what lies outside it. We are terrified by that experience of being alone in the wilderness with no guarantees.

 

[BigOlBuddhaBelly]

I you people. Let's keep it weird

 

[perpetualdawn]

Haven't followed this whole discussion, but I love the somewhat haphazard, ad-hoc approach to taking psychedelics.

Too much sacredness, or institutionalization of these drugs gives me the creeps.

But I've noticed that everyone thinks that their way of treating/taking psychedelics is the best way. It's like religion, everyone has the best one.

 

[Incunabula]

Burnout, perpdawn, popovack. You guys make a good case. I think I'm changing my first opinion on the topic. I'm totally fascinated that we are entering times, were research like brainscans of people on LSD is taking place - Then on the other hand, isn't any scientific studies into psychedelics just going to run into the the Hard Problem really quick? I think so.

Too much sacredness, or institutionalization of these drugs gives me the creeps.

YES!