Thing is, these days we're used to the idea of instant gratification, which is most abily demonstrated by drug use (you carry out an action & get immediately rewarded). CBT does not give the instant gratification & also involves some hard work on the behalf of the patient, but in the end is a cure for the anxiety state. All anti-anxiety drugs do not cure the anxiety, but are merely a sticking plaster type of solution ie a temporasry one, not a perm one and as such should not be used long term.
Personally I think this instant gratification mindset is at the route of a lot of society's problewms as people are less & less inclined to put effort into something wher the reward is a long time off. As for SSRI's, I wouldn't touch them againm after having them prescribed in the past for my SAD, but that doesn't mean that I'm against them per se as I've seen some people who have benefitted enormously from using them.
word. if you really
need an SSRI (be it physical or psychological) you should very carefully evaluate the desire to take even the (relatively safe) tried and tested psychedelics; let alone embarking upon the guinea-pig path of the exotic chemicals, while having a mental or physical imbalance that
requires medication already present.
If you don't really need them and merely use them as a symptomatic approach for a deeper lying issue; you are far better off going for a
real solution that touches upon the core of the problem instead of mopping it under a drug carpet. and real means you will have to work to get there. hence i said and say it again; psychedelics and ssris are mutually exclusive in my book.
which brings me to the pickle in the jar: the real. what makes something 'real' as opposed to 'fake', fleeting, illusionary. by what means does something gain 'reality'? (and this can be extrapolated to all drug abuse, and even further to our society's instant-culture and postmodernism as a whole). The real is direcly equated with the work. there is nu such thing as a free lunch. Take these two apples: One is an instant, say stolen apple, the other one is an apple you earned (you worked for it, put effort in it). which of these apples will taste more real? you might wager to say "there is no difference". perhaps not at first sight. but universalize it and it becomes apparant. take it that apples are something instant. you can always have one, whenever you like. nothing has to be done for it. there is always an apple to eat. then there is the apple you have to toil the earth for first. you eagerly await the blossoming of the tree. which man will enjoy and truly taste his apple?
so it is with chemical enlightenment. you can eat a psychedelic and have an epiphany. you could eat it every week. the boundary between epiphany and non-epiphany begins to dissolve. it becomes flat, meaningless, no longer exceptional or truly gratifying.
a drug can offer hope, a temporary relief. but this relief it cannot be a sustained by itself. the drug will not do away with the cause of the drug-taking. How could it? t
he cause and the relief of that cause depend on each other. the drug can only offer a perspective on the original situation which prompted its use. the real work has to be done in this original state; perhaps with the help of insights gained from the temporary relief and unentanglement the drug offers. but they have to be brought back into a sustainable. the drug itself
will not and
cannot solve its own cause; for that entails the destruction of the drugs essential nature. (and yes; also for purely physical causes, if there is such a thing)
so i venture to say the most important stage of the psychedelic experience is the integration into sober life. and that involves work. it makes it real. a subsequent experience can build further upon this integrated basis, which lends this second psychedelic experience more reality. and thus a dialogue between everyday life and epiphany entrails, in wich both partners bring insights to the table of their conversation (ie. their unity of being; your life).
[goes off to sit in a corner with a pipe, occasionally murmuring and wildly gesticulating to himself]
