Sentience
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
The dictionary definition of psychedelic is pretty broad and general. Most if not all of the common psychedelics of the 60s had an effect on the 5HT receptors, but does that mean it should be the very definition of what it means to be psychedelic or is that merely a coincidence?
For me, Salvia is a full blown visionary plant. It is not a classical 5HT psychedelic, but it is a visionary plant just the same.
I dont think we should take a word with broad and inclusive meaning and narrow it down to a specific class of drugs that fit the bill. I think it would be better to create new and more specific terms instead of redefining the old ones. For example....
Classical 5HT psychedelic
Non 5HT psychedelic (Salvia would be included)
How else can we break them down?
Empatheogen Pyschedelics
Delerient psychedelics
If a drug causes visual and auditory hallucinations then I think it fits the bill of what the root word of psyche-Delic's root definition inherently means. Manifestations from the mind. If it causes these visual and auditory projections of the mind to manifest themselves then its a psychedelic whether it is an agonist or partial agonist to any of the 5HT receptors or not....Mephedrone is probably psychedelic at high doses. It causes people to experience projections of the mind, such as centipedes in place of your scrotum, which is the very definition of psychedelic if you break down the root words into their original greek. If it causes a projection of the mind to subjectively manifest then its a psychedelic regardless of whether its a 5HT mechanism, Kappa opiod antagonism or some other complex mechanism we dont understand yet.
I would argue that 5HT affinity is not inherent in the definition of psychedelic but pure coincidence that the majority of psychedelics used in the 60s and 70s in western culture acted primarily on these receptors. The root definition is related to their effects alone, not their mechanism.
And dont mistake me for being angry. I am enjoying this debate.
For me, Salvia is a full blown visionary plant. It is not a classical 5HT psychedelic, but it is a visionary plant just the same.
I dont think we should take a word with broad and inclusive meaning and narrow it down to a specific class of drugs that fit the bill. I think it would be better to create new and more specific terms instead of redefining the old ones. For example....
Classical 5HT psychedelic
Non 5HT psychedelic (Salvia would be included)
How else can we break them down?
Empatheogen Pyschedelics
Delerient psychedelics
If a drug causes visual and auditory hallucinations then I think it fits the bill of what the root word of psyche-Delic's root definition inherently means. Manifestations from the mind. If it causes these visual and auditory projections of the mind to manifest themselves then its a psychedelic whether it is an agonist or partial agonist to any of the 5HT receptors or not....Mephedrone is probably psychedelic at high doses. It causes people to experience projections of the mind, such as centipedes in place of your scrotum, which is the very definition of psychedelic if you break down the root words into their original greek. If it causes a projection of the mind to subjectively manifest then its a psychedelic regardless of whether its a 5HT mechanism, Kappa opiod antagonism or some other complex mechanism we dont understand yet.
I would argue that 5HT affinity is not inherent in the definition of psychedelic but pure coincidence that the majority of psychedelics used in the 60s and 70s in western culture acted primarily on these receptors. The root definition is related to their effects alone, not their mechanism.
And dont mistake me for being angry. I am enjoying this debate.
Last edited: