• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |

Superiority

That was uncalled for. Is this just a random insult? Ok, I'm to dense to grasp how you came to that conclusion. Care to explain? There's a slim chance this is a misunderstanding, the comment you quoted is maybe just poorly phrased.

I did not mean to offend you, blame my careless wording on the fact that I was drunk and tripping at the time of posting. You did bring it back on topic, the relative psychological dangers of psychs vs other drugs debate was related to the topic at hand, but was overall a diversion, the statement I quoted was a return to the topic of psychedelics users feeling superior.



agnes said:
There's obviously garage around tat serves no purpose whatsoever Other than making dealers rich and ruin the lives of a large percentage of users. The rest gets away with less severe penalties, but those substances still are a detrimental influence in their lives.

You have portrayed unnamed drugs as ruining people's lives, blaming the drug and not the user. Claiming they are a destructive influence per se is the basic logic of prohibitionism and society as a whole when it comes to recreational drug use. And that is a perspective I cannot abide by. And the narrative of which I spoke (well I could infer a couple others out of it, but...)*.

*I had actually typed lengthy response, but then I saw you were referring to specific things such as crack and mdpv and I'm like meh whatevs and cut it down to this. I thought you more broadly meant the harder drugs in general, and I was greatly offended for the sake of myself and my fellow meth and H users.

webby said:
It seems to me that religious people, the ones who preach and go door to door trying to convert people do it because they have bought into someone elses idea and have serious doubts that they have made a good choice and so constantly need to have other people reassure

You are wrong. Their spirituality is just as real, self-evident, and based upon experience as yours. It is meaningful, beautiful and true to them, so it is only natural as caring human beings that they wish to provide for others the grace that has been granted them. As I have said before, psychedelics users tend to discount the validity of sober spiritual experience (especially in a religious context) and vice versa. Maybe some folks take the mythological tradition their spirituality is expresses itself in a bit too seriously, but that is no reason to discount them offhand like this.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong. Their spirituality is just as real, self-evident, and based upon experience as yours. It is meaningful, beautiful and true to them, so it is only natural as caring human beings that they wish to provide for others the grace that has been granted them. As I have said before, psychedelics users tend to discount the validity of sober spiritual experience (especially in a religious context) and vice versa. Maybe some folks take the mythological tradition their spirituality is expresses itself in a bit too seriously, but that is no reason to discount them offhand like this.


Hmm, I applaud your optimism but this is just not what I find in religious people, look at the wars and slaughter committed in the name of 'our religion is the only way and you are damned to hell forever if you don't get on board right now, and if you don't we care about you so much we will shoot you rather than be tolerant of your personal and different ideas and beliefs" religious people just do not seem happy to enjoy their own convictions in peace and harmony with everyone else s, the inquisition was held to be completely justified at the time by the perpetrators in the sense of this is going to hurt me a lot more than it will hurt you, but in the hope that by burning you alive at the stake you may in the last dying moments of your misguided ignorance and evil ways finally see reality our way and so be saved from eternal damnation, i don't see any similarities between this and the tolerance and independence of thought shown by most users of psychedelics.
 
Alright, I'm not gonna deny that there are religious whackos outt there (the taking too seriously folks I mentioned, or worse, people with religion but not spirituality. Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that). But the door to door people I'm familiar with are usually Jehovah's Witnesses, and they're decent if zealous folk (they refuse to go into military service or salute national flags 'n stuff).

but this is just not what I find in religious people, look at the wars and slaughter committed in the name of 'our religion is the only way and you are damned to hell forever if you don't get on board right now, and if you don't we care about you so much we will shoot you rather than be tolerant of your beliefs and happy to enjoy our own in peace and harmony with everyone else s, the inquisition was held to be completely justified at the time by the perpetrators in the sense of this is going to hurt me a lot more than it will hurt you, but in the hope that by burning you alive at the stake you may in the last dying moments of your misguided pain agony and evil ways finally see reality our way and so be saved from eternal damnation, i don't see any similarities between this and the tolerance and independence of thought shown by many users of psychedelics.

And all religious persons are guilty for things done in the name of religion? Is the religion guilty for all things its adherents do? Are all users of psychedelics, and including those who do not use in contemporary context free of guilt from these things?

Keep this in mind,
matthew 13:24-30 said:
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’
 
Yes, I have to admit that you have made some valid and powerful points, thanks for these insights, I appreciate your wisdom and balance.
 
Uh, I'm finding myself circling back to my first comment at this point. People like Kesey, Griggs and Leary (all of them male, funny huh?) had this messianic streak and were proselytizing like mad. I bet they also where convinced of their superiority (a,ong their peers as well as compared to the people on the 'outside'). From what I've read they were flawed individuals (but who isn't really in some sense) and clung to their power/influence, at least that's an impression hard to avoid.

But I think without them the whole counterculture thing wouldn't have taken off in the way it did, maybe we would have been stuck in the fifties mindset for a decade or more until Nixon or the Reaganites took over. Who knows.

In the case of Leary I'm still convinced he did more harm than good from a certain point on, but thats not an important aspect. Last time I checked, I had not a single idea or plan for an undertaking which would help humanity as a whole or benefit the society I'm a part of (at least not one someone else came up with before me). But maybe, once in a while someone would take a tab of acid which kicks loose an avalanche in their head resulting in a genuine stroke of genius.

That doesn't happen that often after downing a bottle of wiskey, does it (disregarding Irish poets and the like)?

Edit: It's maybe paradoxical on the surface, but psychs humble those who take them and deflate arrogant and/or willfully ignorant POV's, as likely or even more likely than inducing a sense of superiority IME. Weird, huh says something about the complexity of their interaction with the human mind. Do I have to argue that or are you prepared to take this assumption for granted? Anyway:

There's a second motive behind the tolerance and independance of thought webbykevin mentioned, at least for me. As user of psychedelics I'm part of a minority among the persecuted minority of drug users who take stuff not accepted and entrenched in mainstream society (at least in my neck of the woods they still form a minority). Being forced to hide that aspect of my life and witnessing what happens to those who'd get exposed, was a lesson in tolerance for me. I can relate to members of opressed subcultures, well many of them at least, in no small part because I've been confronted with intolerance and the damocles sword of social stigma for years.

The Mesoamerican people who used plenty of mushrooms and other entheogens (spiritual people the lot of them, I'd say) and their endless wars and remorseless struggle for dominance among competing cultures aren't exactly a glowing example for psychedelia induced tolerance, just to throw out an example.
 
Last edited:
Religious zealotry is obviously based in conviction, whether that be for their god or their cause, and furthermore, religion isn't the same for everyone. When you think of Buddhism, you typically think of a peaceful, zen monk, right? What about the Aghori sect who follow principles similar to the psychedelic ideas of negative capability and chaos, even embracing traditions society finds abhorrent in order to transcend humanism. In times like the middle ages, violence was the norm. Life was much different, but I'm sure you don't remember, so you talk about peace (like that's intrinsically the answer anyway), and forget that Crusaders still believed that most people automatically went to Hell, and that their service to the Catholic god was their ticket into Heaven. Point is, who are you to comment on anyone else's faiths??

As far as messianic tendencies go, I think influence breeds ego breeds corruption of the message.
 
Uh, I'm finding myself circling back to my first comment at this point. People like Kesey, Griggs and Leary (all of them male, funny huh?) had this messianic streak and were proselytizing like mad. I bet they also where convinced of their superiority (a,ong their peers as well as compared to the people on the 'outside'). From what I've read they were flawed individuals (but who isn't really in some sense) and clung to their power/influence, at least that's an impression hard to avoid.

But I think without them the whole counterculture thing wouldn't have taken off in the way it did, maybe we would have been stuck in the fifties mindset for a decade or more until Nixon or the Reaganites took over. Who knows.

I think that those messianic individuals were scapegoated a lot. IMO they tried psychedelics then literally just couldn't NOT talk about them. They saw their boring old society that they were probably pretty fed up with and decided they needed to take it upon themselves to 'spread the word' about psyches. They really just wanted to influence change and they had powerful tools for doing so.

Then a lot of uninformed people took drugs in problematic ways
 
You have portrayed unnamed drugs as ruining people's lives, blaming the drug and not the user. Claiming they are a destructive influence per se is the basic logic of prohibitionism and society as a whole when it comes to recreational drug use. And that is a perspective I cannot abide by. And the narrative of which I spoke (well I could infer a couple others out of it, but...)*.

*I had actually typed lengthy response, but then I saw you were referring to specific things such as crack and mdpv and I'm like meh whatevs and cut it down to this. I thought you more broadly meant the harder drugs in general, and I was greatly offended for the sake of myself and my fellow meth and H users.

But they are destructively seductive drugs that are addictive and relatively dangerous and hard on the body. Of course, there are those that can use just about any drug successfully, and there always will be... but shifting the entire burden of responsibility solely to the user is just as silly a "social narrative" as shifting the entire burden of responsibility to the drug itself. Obviously it's not as simple as that - the harms that befall a user are the interaction of a lot of factors inherent to the user itself AND the drug itself. If that weren't the case other drugs wouldn't be less dangerous to the same person, and other people wouldn't be more susceptible to dangerous use of the same substances. Some people are different and more irresponsible, some drugs are different and more inherently dangerous. Doesn't mean they can't be used successfully, or that they should be prohibited, but that fact doesn't deny the simple truth that the recreational use of some drugs (like heroin and meth) should probably be at least somewhat discouraged educationally (not outright banned, and not through propaganda). Just my 2c though.
 
religion isn't the same for everyone. When you think of Buddhism, you typically think of a peaceful, zen monk, right?

Buddhism is not a religion, it has no deity, no doctrine, it would by much more accurate to describe it as psychoanalysis.
 
But they are destructively seductive drugs that are addictive and relatively dangerous and hard on the body. Of course, there are those that can use just about any drug successfully, and there always will be... but shifting the entire burden of responsibility solely to the user is just as silly a "social narrative" as shifting the entire burden of responsibility to the drug itself. Obviously it's not as simple as that - the harms that befall a user are the interaction of a lot of factors inherent to the user itself AND the drug itself. If that weren't the case other drugs wouldn't be less dangerous to the same person, and other people wouldn't be more susceptible to dangerous use of the same substances. Some people are different and more irresponsible, some drugs are different and more inherently dangerous. Doesn't mean they can't be used successfully, or that they should be prohibited, but that fact doesn't deny the simple truth that the recreational use of some drugs (like heroin and meth) should probably be at least somewhat discouraged educationally (not outright banned, and not through propaganda). Just my 2c though.

Yeah it's a complicated thing, and your viewpoint is of great utility, just any one view of these things isn't going to be true in some absolutist sense. People have different values, a shift in perspective might render this false. So I'm not going against the letter of what you're saying, but its implications are broad and I wish only to address those things.

relatively dangerous and hard on the body

A common statement about these things, but people mean it in a way beyond mere factual statement, but as a proof at the wrongness of using such drugs. Te root of this is the very common a priori assumption that Physical Health is (morally/inherently) good and thus unhealthy things bad and wrong. Not everyone stands by this premise, and I don't think most persons who hold it have even thought it out, for surely they could come up with some situations where maintaining one's own physical health is outweighed by some other cause.

So while from a community view the dangers of these things must be highlighted, and not actively encouraged, from the point of view from the disaffected and alienated the same behaviors condemned by the predominant social group are perfectly fine.

If you have nothing to live for, and do not place a premium on interpersonal relations, and do not identify yourself with any other group of persons (or a group with values contradictory to the hoi polloi), how is action self-destructive or destructive towards the "other" morally condemnable? It isn't, and is just as acceptable as any other action to such a person. And to refute this we would need to establish morality as objective, and that's not something that can be proven/disproven by discussion, and I will not touch the issue.

I think this gets into in-group/out-group thinking, which is very relevant to not only this mini-discussion, but the above one on negative actions by ideological persons, and the theme of superiority and psychedelics users as a whole.

webbs said:
Buddhism is not a religion, it has no deity, no doctrine, it would by much more accurate to describe it as psychoanalysis.

What definition of religion are you using? And what variety of Buddhism, it's not some monolithic philosophy, and certain flavors can get into the supernaturalism and dogmatism that Westerners like to romanticize it as not having. Not that it matters, it's the meaning behind the allegory that's important I say.
 
Last edited:
^I actually just wrote a paper for my medical ethics class about the viability of collective action toward public health goals, haha, so I definitely don't hold an unexamined a priori assumption that health is good. But I do think there are quite a few people that believe health is a good thing that are going to use those chemicals irresponsibly without understanding the consequences at the time, or at the very least without being able to resist the urge to do so, even in possession of such knowledge.
 
IaM said:
I actually just wrote a paper for my medical ethics class about the viability of collective action toward public health goals

Collective at the grassroots level, broad indefinable social level that is useless addressing but people do anyway, or governmental level? Sounds interesting, but we'd be veering very off topic to discuss it here.

IaM said:
But I do think there are quite a few people that believe health is a good thing that are going to use those chemicals irresponsibly without understanding the consequences at the time, or at the very least without being able to resist the urge to do so, even in possession of such knowledge.

Indubitably.


!!4/OP said:
I can't be the only person here who doesn't vehemently revere psychedelics.. Right?
I mean to say, it's such a common theme to see, especially with DMT. People act like these compounds are sacred holy grails to unlock the universe. Not to say they can't do that, but what's with the superiority?
Believe what you want, but why is anyone who disagrees with you automatically a brash fool who is disrespectful of the ” spirit of the plant” and unworthy of drugs.. They're drugs. Drugs!
Sorry if this is a dumb thread or doesn't belong here. I'm just tired of hearing it. These people have nearly ruined the scene for me.

To answer the actual question you asked, I don't think many people here are so pretentious as to think that ONLY spiritual/therapeutic use of psychedelics is valid, or who would wax poetic about plant spirits. There will always be folks who think they know better and have have the right to tell others how to do things.

I guess we could call it moral superiority. Perhaps a worsened form of personal superiority, what I will call the general belief folks have that whatever they're good at or whatever merit they pride themselves as having in uncommon amounts relative the general population happens to be the very thing that should be used as a metric for human worth.
 
Buddhism is not a religion, it has no deity, no doctrine, it would by much more accurate to describe it as psychoanalysis.

Ha, okay hipster buddhist, your post literally was an example of my point. The facts still remain, and general consensus in academic theology and psychology agree that Buddhism is a religion (probably due to the many, many followers of the way). You do not speak for Buddhism.
 
The original point of it all was that religion is different for everyone, and I'm pretty sure this whole exchange is an excellent illustration.
 
Buddhism is not a religion, it has no deity, no doctrine, it would by much more accurate to describe it as psychoanalysis.


There is no requirement for a deity or doctrine in order for something to be classified as a religion. Nice try though. And "go watch this video" is just as bad as "go read this book" in an debate. Citations are great, but quote the relevant parts for us, and let us discuss those instead.
 
Webbykevin, we get this a lot over at P&S (my old stomping ground). On paper, Buddhism is indisputably an ideology. When one person believes in an ideology and uses it as a basis for their personal place in the greater picture, you have spirituality. When two or more people plan the way they live and interact based on a belief in this ideology, you have religion. That's all religion really is: people getting together and doing things under the influence of a common spiritual belief system. Buddhism certainly is many people's religion worldwide. It is also studied, admired, believed in, and handed on by many people for whom it is not their religion, that is, they do not consciously live by its precepts or seek out the company of others who do. So, is it your religion? You tell me.

This is a derailment, though. I fail to see what bearing any of this has on how psychedelic users are perceived and received by the greater society. Though I'm sure there is fierce debate on this within some Buddhist circles (particularly, if not exclusively, in Western ones!), it was my understanding that walkers of the path of the Buddha recommend a perpetually clear head. This is not to say that drug use is a sin in Buddhism, because it does not entail harm to other sentient beings. But I thought the general consensus among most Buddhists is that drug use is unhelpful toward achieving Buddhist goals.

It strikes me that this would be a very different discussion if we lived in a society with a well-established religious tradition which had a well-established place for psychedelic-mediated mysticism. In such a society, there would already be an established and long-running discourse on the place of the psychedelic user in the larger community. Not only would the taking of psychedelics be couched in lore and ritual, but a person choosing to take them would know exactly how they'd be received and judged after the experience, exactly what role they'd be expected to play, and exactly what types of social discourse they were choosing to enter into. There would be no element of unpleasant surprise -- people would seek out psychedelic experiences knowing that a certain segment of the population would eye them suspiciously. But by the same token, there would be no dreams of winning lots of people over with one's psychedelic visions, no feeling like an undiscovered prophet.

I think it speaks volumes that no large, modern society has provided a dignified place, sacred or secular, for the proper use of psychedelics. In the West, psychedelic drug users have been pushed to the fringes and written out of history ever since the witch hunts of the Middle Ages. I don't see this as being any different nowadays -- the mainstream of Western Society grudgingly puts up with drug users on its fringes due to principles of personal freedom, but at the same time has unequivocally said no to psychedelic use. My hunch is that it's a similar case to the Buddhist consensus I spoke of before: Western Enlightenment values celebrate being well-grounded in consensus reality, and psychedelic use is seen by many as hindering that goal.
 
Yes the psychedelic community remains very much a marginalized fringe, a sub cult of sort, the fact that these pursuits are illegal and carry the stigma and reputation fostered onto the straight community by the media, the church and government propaganda. so here we are, frowned upon by the main stream, misunderstood, alienated and oppressed.

On top of that the psychedelic fringe of illegal drug takers is also misjudged and dismissed by the weed smokers, the coke sniffers, the criminals the outcasts and social underclass at the bottom tiers of western society also spurns us, thinks we are weird, hippys, or too spiritual, too serious about the visions, to out there, too intellectual perhaps, but we fit in nowhere and we are spread far apart, so spending time together in any form of group setting for the psychedelic community usually seems to be non existant or limited to rave partys etc...

I have only a handful of friends that I would consider serious spiritual tripping buddies, and we rarely get together.

But psychedelic users have these amazing experiences and we want to share those tales with other in a similar way people who have a doctrine or a religion as their means of attaining peace and understanding want to share it too. it's only natural.

But I have another perspective that I would like to offer, instead of feeling hard done by and marginalized and oppressed adopt the much older and traditional stance and keep the secrets, move stealthily in the shadows, don't draw any attention from mainstream society to you psychedelic adventures, and don't feel bad about that, feel lucky, blessed, gratefull that you have found a path into the underworld of spirits and elves and entities and ghosts and angels and MAGIC.

For thousands of years people have known these things, quiet rural communities through history have used sacred plants and herbs, there have always been wizards, sorcerers, witches, alchemists, great philosophers and shaman, people that were outlawed and cast down by the church, by the ruling elite, so it was all kept secret, a sideways glance in the tavern, a sly nod of the head or a wink through the crowd in the churchyard, smugglers, black marketeers, gypsys, the traveling circus folk and now us, the psychedelic shamans on the techno age.

many many people have kept their secret traditions and knowledge of the underworld, the other, the confounding, the magical, hidden deep from the watching eyes of the kings men, phycedelics are a part of that underworld story, mushrooms hemlock belladonna datura many herbs and things we have long forgotten were used as part of this other way of having the human experience.

These experiences are not for everyone, let the ones who desire it seek it out, keep these wonderful substances as a sacrament shared by a few, those of us who know need not tell. Don't demand legalization, don't demand anything, don't tell them anything, just enjoy having this secret practice that they can't touch, the mushroom says "only the true and the good can touch this", the straight people, why they can't get anywhere near this, so stop preaching to them about how wonderful it is and how unfair it is that its not on the shelves in the local drug store and shut up about it, fade into the darkness with a wry smile, keep it private, keep it hidden, tell them nothing disappear into the shadows.

why not outsmart them, let them think they have won the war on drugs, be discrete, be smart, be carefull, dont give them any statistics, then they will go away and hopefully direct there fear and loathing towards some other marginal group of poor bastards that are standing out like a sore thumb, fuck them, the art of war requires intelligence, and cunning, they dont have that, they are ignorant narrow minded reactional brutes, surely we can outsmart them by magically making them look elsewhere, they wont even realize we did it, it's beautiful.
 
Last edited:
In part to bring this thread back on topic, and the fact that it does relate to the derailment in some regards, psychedelics have the ability to play a crucial part in religion/spirituality.

Publicly, I consider myself a Naturalistic Pantheist. I do believe in the concept of Karma, and that horoscopes/tarot can have a purpose, and those beliefs normally deviate from the Naturalistic version of Pantheism. However I rationalize them in a logical (with regards to science) manner.

Karma to me, is not some magical force that equals out right and wrong. It's just the belief that if you are kind, respectful and tolerant person; people typically have no reason to dislike you or do you harm. No magical force protecting you, just the psychology of human social relationships.

Horoscopes are not some guide to living life from a magical source with direct connection to me. They are just random readings that provoke thoughts about things important in your life. They give you the opportunity to think or rethink about someone, something, or a decision when you might not otherwise have done so. By going back to those things, you may process the information differently and learn something. Nothing magical or metaphysical involved.

Tarot, likewise with horoscopes, have that same effect. Creative interpretation to give you a chance to think about your life.

Placebo effect in a psychological manner also play into Horoscopes/Tarot in my view. The people who believe it's real (the metaphysics of it), may have less doubt in their mind they are making the right choices. Less doubt, means less stress, means happier life. For those who don't believe it's real, it's the equivalent of a complicated, interpretative coin toss.

However... privately, I consider myself a Psychedelic Naturalistic Pantheist. My beliefs are that of a Naturalistic Pantheist, and I believe Psychedelics help me stay true to those beliefs by reminding me about my place in the universe, helping me discover my identity and self-desired purposes, and bringing out the creative/playful/idealistic sides of me.

You could have Psychdelic Wiccans who use them to commune with the spirits of nature. Psychedelic Theists who use them to communicate with their god.

To me, psychedelics are a very useful spiritual tool. The ones that have a problem with superiority (moral or self) with psychedelics (aside from delusions of grandeur), seem to be the people who worship the psychedelic itself. Moral superiority coming from the same psychology giving someone a superiority complex with any other religion. Self-superiority from the belief that using them or being able to use them is of something worth bragging about or praiseworthy.

I know at times I do fall into the "self-superiority" mindset in my ability to handle psychedelics easily at times. However in general I'm a very humble person, and very good at knowing my limits. If I start falling into that mode of thinking, I continue to remind myself that it's only because I know my limits, not because I'm superior in some way.
 
Top