I believe that DMT is the international standard for worldview testing -- any philosophy that can withstand repeated exposures to high dose, smoked DMT must - by default - be as solid as a rock. I'm not sure how far the UN are along the path of integrating this into the ISO system of international standards; but I believe that it is only a matter of time. To answer the question: Psychedelia DEFINES my philosophy.
NO! Scrap that idea - look what happened to the Aztecs!
OR: look what happened to the Mayans - more-sensible DMT users.
OR: look what happened in the biggest genocide this world has ever known as 50 million people were killed after the conquest by the Spanish.
OR: look what happened today, in the news.
But this is certainly psychedelic thinking; and is certainly well balanced.
But it could be argued that I am talking to myself: but since
I mentioned it, I am also
aware of talking to myself.
Again, I must come to the conclusion that psychedelic philosophy is superior to all others; but that makes me no different from every other ego-centric, opinionated person - but this realization in-itself is an example of psychedelic thinking. The layers could grow, but when I doubt that most people even take psychedelic drugs very seriously for a moment - preferring belief in known "facts"; in blissful ignorance of the epistemological origins of those "facts" - it seems senseless to continue.
Having said all of that, the psychedelic experience is senseless in and of itself. It means nothing; unless tainted by the philosophy of sober philosophers - which many if not most people do seem to cling to. Of course, the identification of our calculus as being the cause of everything we "know" to be true is well known; and well-dismissed as irrelevant to philosophy - largely due to the fact that it solves all of the problems of philosophy, which is unacceptable to philosophers who have jobs in academia.
Is it possible, however, to be a logical positivist DMT smoker; I would argue that it is impossible to be anything else -- unless the person is an infrequent DMT smoker; or an ex-DMT smoker.
One further layer of intrigue is the fact that I have been happily typing away with no consideration for how this will be construed by a sober person. This could be argued to be a flaw - however the (belated) realization of this fact again speaks highly for psychedelic thinking - these may be spurious problems, however, due to disinterest of many of those who glance over what other people have written, and rush to contribute something themselves - of this, I could be accused correctly, in this instance - however I would put it to most people that since I smoked some DMT before I started writing this, I am perhaps in the best position of anyone to contribute to a thread about how psychedelia moulds in with my philosophy.
To those seeking a non-considered approach to philosophy, this is obviously a perfect example of why psychedelic drugs can ruin a mind - to those with a brain; they may see that consideration of philosophical positions is in fact enhanced by such alternate approaches.
Conclusions, however, are hard to arrive at - and this causes me no distress at all; simply amusement at how I have spent the past half an hour of my life - writing this pile of tripe with lofty pretensions and absolutely no mathematical formulae. The absence of which guarantee it to be 50% wrong, and 50% right; due to the dualistic nature of language as described at length by Whitehead and Russell!