perpetualdawn
Bluelighter
[I wrote some stuff in another thread and then realized I wasn't really helping the OP so deleted it, but I had put some thought into it so rather than send it to the trash bin I'm pasting it here in case it vibes for someone. I'm going to start out with laying my own position not because I'm trying to impose my view, but as a starting point to debate or agree with, in an effort to come to a better hypothesis on the viability of psychedelic community.]
I'm highly skeptical of any community that brands itself as psychedelic and is open for signups. There's just too much room for corruption in that scenario. I've thought a lot about if you can ever have psychedelics as a sanctioned component of a religious movement or organized community and have it work out well, and I'm still not really sure. I think in some idealistic future it is possible, like how communism could work if humanity was more advanced. But I think in general psychedelics in community and religious groups might just inherently open up too much room for mishandling, manipulation, confusion.
It's something people have been experimenting with in our industrialized society since the 60s and it often fails and sometimes it works out for a while.
Some traditional societies *seem* to have healthy communities involving psychedelics (but I think those are fucked up a lot of the time too). These societies are family and tribe first, with a thin layer of plant medicine on top. I think this is the best bet as a model for how trusted psychedelic communities can work in modern society.
The most functional trippy communities that I've seen were like that - tight networks of good friends first opting to cooperate and work together, eating together sometimes, sometimes living together, building parties and events together. Friends first, and then some psychedelics around in special times. These communities always are open to non-psychedelic people and that is a healthy sign. There's no a leader - but people step up to leadership roles as needed but it's always a slightly anarchistic democracy or do-ocracy.
What do you think, can you have a healthy psychedelic community? Have you seen one or ever been part of one?
I'm highly skeptical of any community that brands itself as psychedelic and is open for signups. There's just too much room for corruption in that scenario. I've thought a lot about if you can ever have psychedelics as a sanctioned component of a religious movement or organized community and have it work out well, and I'm still not really sure. I think in some idealistic future it is possible, like how communism could work if humanity was more advanced. But I think in general psychedelics in community and religious groups might just inherently open up too much room for mishandling, manipulation, confusion.
It's something people have been experimenting with in our industrialized society since the 60s and it often fails and sometimes it works out for a while.
Some traditional societies *seem* to have healthy communities involving psychedelics (but I think those are fucked up a lot of the time too). These societies are family and tribe first, with a thin layer of plant medicine on top. I think this is the best bet as a model for how trusted psychedelic communities can work in modern society.
The most functional trippy communities that I've seen were like that - tight networks of good friends first opting to cooperate and work together, eating together sometimes, sometimes living together, building parties and events together. Friends first, and then some psychedelics around in special times. These communities always are open to non-psychedelic people and that is a healthy sign. There's no a leader - but people step up to leadership roles as needed but it's always a slightly anarchistic democracy or do-ocracy.
What do you think, can you have a healthy psychedelic community? Have you seen one or ever been part of one?
