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

Do you consider Ketamine a Psychedelic?

Is ketamine a psychedelic

  • yes

    Votes: 56 65.1%

  • no

    Votes: 30 34.9%
  • Total voters
    86
  • Poll closed .
Pre-K hole doses, no. (with the exception of the combination of LSD. My fucking god does that not send you into a serious state of psychedelia)

K-hole doses are very psychedelic. Tapping into the subconscious, making contact with "entities", CEV's, exploration of the mind and separation of the ego...

I can't see how K at proper doses wouldn't be psychedelic.
 
I WANT DELSYD'S EXPLANATION!.... cause i'm confused and i'm sure he'll make it alright again... thanks!




Jamshyd's explanation was really helpful too!.......



Jamshyd said:
^ A psychedelic is specifically a chemical substance (or substances within a plant) that induces a state of stimulatory as well as perceptual over-saturation. It due to this state that one may find one's self propelled into a mystical state of insight.

Coversely, a dissociative is a chemical substance that brings about a state of under-saturation of the senses and the perception thereof (in the case of dissociative anaesthetics, of which K is one, sensory input is cut off entirely), and within this vacuum may one be able to reach a mystical state of insight.

The insight itself, though, may indeed be identical for both in its absolute form (Infinite everythingness is not too different from infinite nothingness).

Personally, I MUCH prefer the path of the latter, and would pick Ketamine over any psychedelic at any given time.

See, I try to keep my definitions useful, because if I were to start calling anything interesting (and therefore mind-manifesting to some degree) a psychedelic, then I might as well just call everything a psychedelic and stop taking drugs!
Click to expand...
 
its a dissossiative psychadelic... produces amazing OEV'S , CEV's... i don't see whats more psychadelic than a K-hole... journeyining through time and space, hanging between life and death, concious and sub-concious... just because its a dissossiaive doesn't mean it can't also be psychadelic...
 
madswagga said:
Dissociatives are by definition psychoactive drugs, but i'd include them as psychedelics (LSD, shrooms, mescaline, dmt, etc) because they hallucinogenic.
Click to expand...

There are 3 classes of hallucinogen:

Psychedelic, Dissociative, Deliriant.

Psychedelic =/= Hallucinogen, Psychedelic == A *type* of hallucinogen. Dissociatives and deliriants are too, and saying they're the same is wrong imo.

So I voted no, it's a dissociative. I think people just forget that dissociative is a class of extremely powerful hallucinogen, capable of inducing even more powerful visions than those of psychedelics at times - people naturally associate visuals with psychedelics, and so they call something a psychedelic if it is visual to them. That's why I partly wish this forum was called "Hallucinogenic Drugs" rather than Psychedelic Drugs, as when people talk about dissociatives and deliriants here it just adds to the number of people calling them psychedelics.
 
Well, this is really just arguing all of our definitions of the word. Glad to see that it brought up some discussion. I just thought it would be interesting seeing as what people thought about MDMA in this sense.

I voted yes, but it is a close line in my opinion. Ketamine is barely a psychedelic in my terms, because a psychedelic clearly has it's up's and down's. For this reason I said that MDMA was not a psychedelic; it only allows you to experience the ups. Ketamine was a close call because I feel like it is almost the exact opposite, only allowing you to experience the down's in a way. However, I think there is some beauty and good in a K-hole if you look at it differently. It was a hard question for myself to answer.

Of course we all know that the visuals and confusion aren't what constitutes a psychedelic. And we all know K is a psychedelic dissociative, but isn't MDMA a psychedelic in these terms? (I don't know if it actually is, I always thought it was in this area in the venn-diagram) And many of us don't call that a psychedelic. I just wanted to hear some people's opinion on the matter and open it up to discussion.
 
I agree with Jamshyd completely - a psychedelic is, in my opinion, a drug that has a direct effect of bringing subconscious material to the surface, and it, presumedly, does this via a specific serotonin receptor agonism. Inversely, one might say that a dissociative like ketamine effectively lowers the surface to the subconscious level and, further, that it does this via a specific glutamate receptor antagonism. This comparison is entirely metaphorical and illustrative.

The drugs of both these classes may lend visionary qualities to an experience, but the means of achieving said visionary, or transcendent, or spiritual, state are completely different, and indeed best described by the terms psychedelic and dissociative, respectively - alternatives considered. This ascription does not exclude the possibility of having a psychedelic experience on ketamine, or having a dissociative experience on LSD. It is also possible to have a stimulating high on marijuana or feeling relieved of anxiety on amphetamine due to the complex interrelations between transmitter release, conditioning and psychological reward - this does not render Cannabis a stimulant drug and amphetamine an anxiolytic one - their primary and direct functions as drugs are not those.

There is a lot to say on this topic but it turns abstract and general pretty quickly and is blasted off into meta science before you know it ;)
 
Last edited:
Jesusgreen said:
There are 3 classes of hallucinogen:

Psychedelic, Dissociative, Deliriant.

Psychedelic =/= Hallucinogen, Psychedelic == A *type* of hallucinogen. Dissociatives and deliriants are too, and saying they're the same is wrong imo.

So I voted no, it's a dissociative. I think people just forget that dissociative is a class of extremely powerful hallucinogen, capable of inducing even more powerful visions than those of psychedelics at times - people naturally associate visuals with psychedelics, and so they call something a psychedelic if it is visual to them. That's why I partly wish this forum was called "Hallucinogenic Drugs" rather than Psychedelic Drugs, as when people talk about dissociatives and deliriants here it just adds to the number of people calling them psychedelics.
Click to expand...

Sniff 4 grams of K in a night and try to tell me that K is not a psychadelic drug... 3C-E is a mild stimulant and a strong hallucinogen... you can't classify these things in black and white.. they overlap eachother... on K i've had hallucinogenic, dissossiative AND deliriant effects from it...
 
They totally overlap, many psychedelics are dissociative - especially in higher dosages. Actually the vast majority has that potential, at least the ones that have any worthwhile potency at all.

I might go so far as to say that the majority of psychedelics are dissociatives and the other way around at the same time. The only thing important, really, is the tendency for the kind of effects they elicit! Ketamine has a great tendency to produce dissociative effects, however it also has a tendency to produce some psychedelic effects though one could argue subjectively generally to a lesser extent. 2C-B has a tendency to produce empathogenic and quite entactogenic effects at lower doses, an increasing tendency to produce psychedelic effects at medium/normal doses that may sometimes overshadow the empathogenic effects, and a tendency to produce dissociative effects at very high doses, especially if the setting is at least somewhat sensory deprived, and a tendency to produce deleriant effects at extremely high doses.

Take 2C-T-7 now, and the shift from these tendencies is suddenly less predictable and more volatile, which explains the seriously broad range of possible effects. Ones that are often enough not expected.

The tendencies are a variable function of set and setting, including dosage of course

Often blanket terms come in handy but I think 'hallucinogen' only confuses. At least for me.

There is a presumption in there that all sober people conceive the world as it objectively is. Wrong. Does not exist. Everyone has their own subjective experience and some people are much more sensitive to sensory stimuli than others. Some have more sensory effects that could be seen as a type of distortion if you are looking at functional acuity. Some people are so sensitive they claim to pick up things that are starting to near ESP phenomena, where you draw the line between real and imaginary is up to you. What is real and what is not?

Of course drugs distort the way we experience the world, but one always has to be specific about what ballpark category of distortion, otherwise an adjective - even used as noun - like hallucinogen is redundant in the context of drugs.

People who dont really give a shit like LEO can use words like 'narcotics' and 'hallucinogen' but to me it only says you're way out of touch with your subject.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion psychedelics are mind expanding. They INCREASE sensitivity to sensory stimuli, and usually do not affect judgment (increasing your comfort level).

Ketamine, seems to be an ANTI-psychedelic. Instead of increasing your awareness, it DECREASES and DETACHES you from your surroundings. It also effects judgment, as one feels sedated and not as terrified going into it than with classic psyches. K is a dissociative. Same thing with salvia. It's no doubt hallucinogenic, but it doesn't feel anything like classic psyches.
 
I get what you're saying but I disagree.

What is in the mind is a mix of directly incoming sensory data and all data that is not incoming i.e. memory / ideas of the past and projections and expectations of the future, the ego, simulations of concepts and ideas / imagination, the subconsciousness...
All these things are swimming together in your mind, that is except for some very extraordinary states of being like when one has lost his ego and perceives everything new but alien. Everything is just experienced, everything is. And nothing more. Rings a bell?

What dissociatives do is distort and inhibit incoming sensory data so that there is a hole ( :D k-hole haha), the mind tends to try and be as efficient as possible and utilize all its power to control the perception of self and reality. When the incoming data is removed all the other things enter the scene although in a depersonalized manner. There is only innerspace where all sorts of fragments of the mind interact. Eventually, at higher doses this too can disappear and consequentially what is left is an ego-less state but one where the senses do not take part. Then, everything just is as one, all contact with the outside world is lost and all differentiation of thought seizes.

With a psychedelic the same can happen but it requires a lot to overcome the experience of external stimuli and have a complete unity-experience.

You see: dissociatives handle sensory data differently but in terms of showing you the contents of your mind they are quite similar to classic psychedelics. Classic psychedelics are focussed on both sensory perception and what comes from within (the things I listed) working together. Dissociation is a primary effect of dissociatives but it is a secondary effect of classic psychedelics. It may not appear so but they are parallel paths.

I understand the differences though, sure they are there and you easily stumble over them. But consider what they have in common and your perspective might change.

By the way psychedelics affect judgement too, and the fact that fear plays a lesser role with dissociatives just means that they are more direct in disconnecting you from your body and self-image and the worries of functioning in a reality where you cannot control everything. With dissociatives your central point of control disperses into a meta-perspective and often enough a comforting sense of control over your godly inner domain takes over. Not always though, there can definitely be struggles and conflicts with the apparently integrated or partially integrated 'me'.
When this point is passed with classic psychedelics and this concept of me is let go of the same wave of surrender and release of fear and all the rest comes over you. Often the 'problem' with regular psychedelics seems to be where to 'leave' yourself, your body and your individuality because there is still interaction with the outside world going on.

Actually I find R-ketamine a fine illustration of my point, because it can really pose this problem I mentioned much more than S-ketamine because it lacks the sedation as you put it, or body dissociation. The self comes apart but the emptying vessel is still left to move and function which can be pretty schizo or psychotic-like.
 
Last edited:
I'd drop ketamine from the 'psychedelics' category because a hallmark of psychedelics is visual enhancement. The open-eyed effects of ketamine aren't enhanced visuals; rather, everything looks washed-out and fake. Also the headspace is very different. The visuals are trippy, though, and superior to most psychedelics imo.

Also, the way music feels on ketamine and the way music feels on acid or shrooms or molly is pretty different, I'd say.

I would, however, consider MDMA psychedelic.
 
Last edited:
It's not really correct to give your own definition for 'psychedelic', just like arthunter said it was his 'opinion' is incorrect, it's a factual definition... psychedelic MEANS mind manifesting. Everyone is welcome to say and certainly has a huge point saying that there are differences between dissociatives and classic psychedelics, but I find that dissociatives manifest what is in the mind just as well.
Only the way it does this is by dissociating you from your environment and sense of self, still what you experience - what bubbles up to the surface in your inner mindscape is still part of yourself. You don't experience ketamine you experience yourself manifested differently by means of ketamine.

Who are we to say something can only mind manifesting through this way but not that way?
I think it's both valid. Even more, I think it's not sound to have visual enhancement qualify a substance as a psychedelic. What is so mind-manifesting about modulating the things perceived around you? If anything that is environment-manifesting. Of course it is the perception that is distorted and not the environment itself, but that is speaking in subject-object terms. The only things that matter are the interpretation and values that you experience by perceiving your environment. Everything is experience and value, when that is enhanced, whether the experience is derived from external perception or experience of subconscious material, it means the mind is enhanced - or - manifested.
It's all psychedelic. The range is far broader guys.

I explained how I think about this already: Ketamine is not A psychedelic because it is not classified as being one primarily, but it is psychedelic, psychedelic being an adjective.
 
Last edited:
^ If we're going by simply the meaning of the world "psychedelic," then everything I have encountered in my life thus far is psychedelic.

Time to find a new word to differentiate the drugs we used to call "psychedelic" from the rest of the world ;).
 
I don't know. It makes sense that Ketamine may fit the definition of psychedelic because it is mind manifesting. But my gripe with it being placed in the category of psychedelic is that it's not the psychedelia of ketamine that isolates it. It is dissociation that is the isolating characteristic of K.

Classic psyches (in non-extreme doses) IME tend to increase the detail received from external environments. You smell more, your hearing is more focused, and you see very fine details in objects/colors. So let's say that it is an EXTERNAL AMPLIFIER, as well as an internal amplifier because it illuminates the mind independent of environment.

Ketamine is the opposite in one way, but the same in the other way. That is, since it dissolves away external details: it is an EXTERNAL INHIBITOR, but like psyches, it is an internal amplifier. They are both internal amplifiers. So, for you to follow my logic, here's a good simple summary:

Classic psyches: internal amplifier, external amplifier.
Ketamine : internal amplifier, external inhibitor.

Although the term psychedelic technically means mind manifesting (internal amplifier) which ketamine would fit, this is not practical because mind manifesting is too broad of a concept to have any significance as a category.

Categories are for differentiating. My argument essentially is that "psychedelic" should be narrowed and reserved for classic psychedelics (DMT, psilocybin, mecaline, etc.): or serotonergic psychedelics, because they are the ones that amplify the external world. This is what makes them unique. And since Ketamine inhibits the external world, this (dissociation) is what makes it unique. Ketamine AND classic psyches have a similar effect on the internal world, so this criteria should be disregarded since it cannot DEFINE each from the other.

In a nutshell: the PRIMARY (most unique) effect of Ketamine is dissociation, while the PRIMARY effect of Serotonergic psyches are the opposite (amplification). And since "Psychedelic" already has historically been the category for serotonergic psyches, I think this makes psychedelic traditionally mean 'externally amplifying'. Ketamine does not do this, so it should be categorized as a dissociative in order to define it's character.

Essentially I'm saying that "psychedelic" should be used as a defining category in a more specific way (the traditional and historical way); otherwise sertonergic psyches would not be recognized for their uniqueness. Therefore I agree that "K is psychedelic, but it is not A Psychedelic."
 
I really dislike that psychedelic is treated as a class of drugs (the 5HT2a partial agonists) rather than a description of subjective effects. It would be more useful, IMO, to discuss psychedelia as a concept that is not inherently linked to any specific drug or family of drugs, and to discuss serotonergics as a class of drug.

The word 'psychedelic' doesn't inherently say anything about achieving the results through over-saturation. That's a pretty good general description of the serotonergics, but I think it's a stretch to retcon the similarities between the most popular psychedelics into the definition of the term itself. Amphetamines bombard my brain with perceptual stimulation and alter my interpretation of sensory data, but they do so to produce a very different effect. 5HT2a receptor agonists and NMDA receptor antagonists certainly have a lot of differences in the general effects profile they tend to produce, but they both end up 'leading' to some very similar places.

At any rate, this is all silly semantics. Pretty much everyone here agrees that A) dissociatives can produce visuals, mental insights and other effects that are mind-manifesting and reminiscent of serotonergic psychedelics, and B) serotonergic psychedelics are quite distinct from dissociatives in many ways as well.

Food for thought: very high dose psychedelic experiences often involve a trance-like, out of body type experience which at least feels very much like severing one's ties to external stimuli in favor of something concocted entirely by the mind. This sounds a lot like the type of experience that supposedly makes dissociatives opposite to psychedelics. On the other side of the equation, I have a friend who makes electronic music and loves mid-dose DXM to inspire new music and listen to his creations in a new way - this sounds very much like amplifying external stimuli to produce a mind-manifesting state. There is a general trend toward amplifying and altering external stimuli with serotonergics and toward muting or, well, dissociating from external stimuli with dissociatives, but both classes of drug produce a wide-ranging set of responses and subjective experiences that complicate any such attempt to define them as separate based on their effects. Ergo, I think it's more useful to discuss serotonergic psychedelics versus dissociatives when the mechanism of action is relevant to the discussion, and to interpret the term psychedelic more broadly in terms of the end effect in other cases. Once you start looking at subjective effects as the basis for classification, I don't think there's a logically sound and viable way to end up defining dissociation and psychedelia as completely separate experiences.
 
ketamine IS psychedelic in the sense that it is mind-manifesting. it amplifies what goes on and allows for insight. thus it is psychedelic and can be used as a tool... however, it is the most treacherous psychedelic i know. whilst alllowing one to SEE the trigger/responses of one's emotional register, it also allows one not to FEEL the emotions per se... it'll just make you numb in the long run... rather than a TOOl it then becomes a TOY . . . of high recreational value but with a lot of payback. I know from experience and I am so done with this drug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top