psychedelics and denial of the divine

[BristolRob]

Can people be objective and scientific and describe the human condition?

Cognitive psychology can't.

I wasn't looking for an answer, more a discussion

 

[Xihias]

I read the Bhagavad-Gita and that made everything clear and provided me with knowledge and realisations that no other material world substance could provide.

 

[B9]

Anything is possible we know so little ! Our beliefs are what we choose to comfort or scare ourselves with!

 

[specialspack]

But there is never any guarantee the current situation you are in will mirror past situations, so shadows of past perceptions are never really subsitute for direct perception in the present. The worst beliefs, of course, are beliefs based on what other people told us, which are basically shadows of shadows of someone else's perceptions.

The worst beliefs are those based on what other people have told us? That's s pretty extreme position - it would seem to follow that scientific beliefs are the worst of the worst, since not only are they things people have told us, they're third hand in that even the people who thought of them have no direct access to the "truth" - only though experiment.*

*Not making any metaphysical claims about the nature of scientific truth.

 

[specialspack]

no, it sounds like what Xorkoth is describing is understanding of GOD similar to the hindu concept of Brahman, which is the Absolute Reality that manifests in various ways. hinduism is NOT atheistic. atheists do not believe we are all one consciousness experiencing itself, atheists tend to believe in individual consciousness as an evolutionary byeproduct of the physical brain. they are materialists. the spiritual worldview is the belief that consciousness is fundamental and physical matter is just a manisfestion, the atheistic or materialistic worldview says the opposite. i would be curious to hear more about Xorkoth's beliefs.

Er... did you read what I wrote?

Atheism does not equal materialism - that's just the way it's perceived in popular culture. "A-theism" means NOT theism, i.e. the denial of any Gods.

Atheists can be materialists, but they don't have to be. They could be idealists. They could be Buddhists or Taoists as well, and I suspect there are forms of Hindu belief that would qualify as a-theistic, although I don't know as I'm not familiar with the theological structure of Hinduism. Hinduism is usually conceived as polytheistic, as along with Brahman there are many other gods, right? I would think it would depend on the ontological claims for what Brahman is, and how he/she/it "manifests" itself.

The wikipedia entry on atheism really is quite good - and before anyone says, "oh it's just wikipedia anyone can edit it", it's also heavily referenced if you want to follow.

 

[specialspack]

the ego is an imaginary construction, as is the idea of a bodily self - a poignant moment in its construction is what Lacan calls the mirror stage, where we are presented in front of the mirror and recognise ourselves as having a cohesive body with identifiable boundries (it is interesting how psychedelics break this construction of the ego down).

So, according to Lacan, before the mirror stage the self does not recognise that it has identifiable boundaries? Most other philosophers that I can think of would say that the self/other boundary is one of the first things that must be in place before selfhood proper can develop.

Is he talking about an exact stage in development?

 

[specialspack]

One of the most beautiful and surreal things about some altered states of consciousness is they allow for pure and direct perception of stimuli, without being first filtered through the many filters of pre-established thought patterns we learn to build. They just are. It's in such rare moments that we can feel Lacan's realm of the real which cannot be expressed in words.

Lacan would not agree, I think. It's a fallacy to assume that psychedelics allow pure perception - pure perception is impossible. Whatever happens, you can't strip away all those pre-established thought patterns. For instance, the fact that you have a point of view is irreducible.

The Real is by definition inacessible.

 

[Ximot]

Agreed, but I do think we get a whole lot closer to it and becoem aware of our normally "automatic" perceptions.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I'm with Ximot. I think 'the real' is visible in fleeting glimpses. I know I have had moments, almost all of them sober, when I have simply taken something in and done only that -- not had really any thought on my mind at all. It's an almost indescribable feeling, and never one that lasts long, but a very liberating one, because it teaches us that we can choose, to a large extent, which thought fliters to apply to the stimuli we perceive. I understand this is a whole lot different from 'stripping away' these thought patterns. But still, to behold firsthand the fact that our own filters are not an integral part of what we take in, is good enough.

Psychedelics, I figure, get us to this realization by the opposite path. That is, they make our thoughts and feelings FULLY MANIFEST in our sensory perceptions. The real is just there, and just is. Being at peace with it requires choosing the most advantageous thought patterns to filter it through.

 

[BristolRob]

Hi Luke,

So, according to Lacan, before the mirror stage the self does not recognise that it has identifiable boundaries? Most other philosophers that I can think of would say that the self/other boundary is one of the first things that must be in place before selfhood proper can develop.
Is he talking about an exact stage in development

To answer the question - yes - a major tenet of Lacan's was that the ego is imaginary - it is constructed through fantasy. The first stage in its construction is an identification with the mirror image (one reason why photos of ourselves appear odd - this how we really look to others!). Before this, the child is just a bundle of emotions, a screaming "thing" of instincts and demands. Through attaining an ego, it loses its original bounlessness (oceanic boundlessness ring any bells?). Another important element of the mirror stage is the way the child is represented in front of the mirror e.g., "oh what a beautiful baby you are, yes you are, yes you are" sort of craic. Another reason why when a little nervous, going on a date for example, we quickly pop to the bathroom and remind ourselves that we are a cohesive agent, that we have boundaries and that we "look good"!

For Lacan, our true essence is our unconscious; the ego is imaginary, psychedelics prove how fragile our ego-constructs are; as our ego's disolve, so do our rigid convictions of where we begin and end.

With regards the real:

I think the best example of the real is trauma - is shatters schemas and the experience is very much outside of language. I also believe that the psychedelic experience is more an experience in the real than an experience of the imaginary - especially high dose LSD, where trauma can be accessed and actually relived.

 

[BENSONHURST]

There's a big concept in religion that if you live through this life and its bullshit, that you'll be rewarded on the other side with an eternity of euphoria... But doesn't that sound boring, if not senseless to you? Our fragility and ability to feel one way or another is part of what makes us alive and our lives worth living.

So, what you are struggling with may not be that heaven has been taken away, but that it's something you are no longer convinced of.

and what religion offers EUPHORIA upon death>
you lower it to the level of an infinite ecstasy trip

you cannot get your head around what is to come next-
you are not equipped to contemplate what awaits you

 

[BENSONHURST]

I read the Bhagavad-Gita and that made everything clear and provided me with knowledge and realisations that no other material world substance could provide.

you read something that flipped your shit upside down huh- take a number

 

[nuke]

you are not equipped to contemplate what awaits you

Neither are you. That's why I don't think about it. It just is.

 

[BENSONHURST]

Neither are you. That's why I don't think about it. It just is.

^ IM NOT??

damn

 

[specialspack]

Hi Luke,

To answer the question - yes - a major tenet of Lacan's was that the ego is imaginary - it is constructed through fantasy. The first stage in its construction is an identification with the mirror image (one reason why photos of ourselves appear odd - this how we really look to others!). Before this, the child is just a bundle of emotions, a screaming "thing" of instincts and demands. Through attaining an ego, it loses its original bounlessness (oceanic boundlessness ring any bells?). Another important element of the mirror stage is the way the child is represented in front of the mirror e.g., "oh what a beautiful baby you are, yes you are, yes you are" sort of craic. Another reason why when a little nervous, going on a date for example, we quickly pop to the bathroom and remind ourselves that we are a cohesive agent, that we have boundaries and that we "look good"!

Ok, but that's a metaphorical mirror, right? The subject doesn't actually have to be presented with a mirror to pass through this stage. The infant sees itself represented (i.e. reflected) within the Other (and the mother is the primary other for most infants).

For Lacan, our true essence is our unconscious; the ego is imaginary, psychedelics prove how fragile our ego-constructs are; as our ego's disolve, so do our rigid convictions of where we begin and end.

Yes, so for Lacan the unconscious is the ground of being.

With regards the real:

I think the best example of the real is trauma - is shatters schemas and the experience is very much outside of language. I also believe that the psychedelic experience is more an experience in the real than an experience of the imaginary - especially high dose LSD, where trauma can be accessed and actually relived.

So is the Real inacessible, or it is accesible though traumatic experience ?

The Real (in the Lacanian sense) is not the same as metaphysical clams about the underlying structure of "reality" - it's not the noumenon, the "thing-in-itself".

As Zizek says: "The real is not a sort of reality behind reality, but rather the void or empty places that render reality incomplete and inconsistent. It is the screen of the phantasm, the very screen itself that distorts our perception of reality".

Which I think is the confusion that MyDoorsAreOpen is having when s/he says:

One of the most beautiful and surreal things about some altered states of consciousness is they allow for pure and direct perception of stimuli, without being first filtered through the many filters of pre-established thought patterns we learn to build. They just are. It's in such rare moments that we can feel Lacan's realm of the real which cannot be expressed in words.

I'm with Ximot. I think 'the real' is visible in fleeting glimpses. I know I have had moments, almost all of them sober, when I have simply taken something in and done only that -- not had really any thought on my mind at all. It's an almost indescribable feeling, and never one that lasts long, but a very liberating one, because it teaches us that we can choose, to a large extent, which thought fliters to apply to the stimuli we perceive. I understand this is a whole lot different from 'stripping away' these thought patterns. But still, to behold firsthand the fact that our own filters are not an integral part of what we take in, is good enough.

This sounds like you are using "the real" to refer to the "thing-in-itself". I'll not go into the arguments why you cannot get close to or glimpse the thing-in-itself... If you subscribe to materialst realism, you're going to be impossible to convince! This thread offered some interesting discussion on that


Wikipedia refs:
Noumenon
Zizek

 

[BristolRob]

As Zizek says: "The real is not a sort of reality behind reality, but rather the void or empty places that render reality incomplete and inconsistent. It is the screen of the phantasm, the very screen itself that distorts our perception of reality".

Yeah, that's it. It's not the "real" as in the sense of reality. Zizek explains it better, he's a great writer and thinker. I almost don't want to say anything about it because by definition you're not supposed to be able to! It's outside of language.

I still stand by the position that the psychedelic experience is an experience in the real as opposed to the imaginary, otherwise it wouldnt feel so eerie. If the psychedelic experience was just fantasy then people wouldnt be so fascinated by it, like dreams, if they were "just froth" we would have got over their enigma by now.

p.s., get on to Ben about meeting up. Would be great even if just to have some beers

 

[BreakingSet]

I still stand by the position that the psychedelic experience is an experience in the real as opposed to the imaginary[...]

That would be my opinion also.

 

[Liric]

Second that^

It occured to me that centering one's philosophy around an expierience provided by a drug would no doubt be considered unhealthy by the uneducated masses. I'm a huge skeptic myself but I always end up at the conclusion that the emphasis I place on psychedelic expierience is in all ways valid. Entire civilizations have developed around the use of entheogens at one time or another, something you don't find of other drugs. People take psychedelics and more often than not realize that its far more than a good time. There is someting fundamental that goes way beyond booze, cable TV, your paycheck, all that shit. That all seems to be the 'imaginary', a conditioned imaginary lifestyle which requires a powerful deconditioning expierience to awaken from.

 

[Xorkoth]

I support that notion as well.

 

[Gog]

It seems that lately people here have been describing my thoughts in meticulous detail!! Right on. Liric: people have called me a "crazy man running around in the woods" for my mushroom-acid philosophies. Even hinting that psychedelics have some existence outside of pure TV-cartoonery is upsetting to most people. I guess because to them, the TV-imaginary world IS the real. Scary thought huh?? Then again, defining what's real as opposed to what's not real is a little antithetical to the psychedelic mindset, isn't it? Wouldn't any creation of your mind be real? The problem with the ego being, that its creations are used to AVOID something rather than conceptualise it.