I would like to propose several things here.
First -- that "the way a substance feels" is totally subjective.
There is no objective component whatsoever to "how this drug feels" -- not only based on the current batch of it one has, but even from moment to moment! In other words, it remains subjective throughout the entire experience, and the next experience is equally as subjective and potentially varying throughout the experience.
Secondly -- that social agreement on "the way a substance feels" is still subjective.
Social agreement doesn't constitute actual objectivity, but rather "consensus subjectivity" or "consensus reality".
There is a very real possibility that a consensus "this stuff feels like shite" can make it feel like shite. Who knows how much of a drug high is placebo, or based on belief/expectation of how it's supposed to feel?
Thirdly -- that because of the above two factors, there is no objective component whatsoever to substance discussion, unless there has been a massive coordination among all discussion participants in bioassaying everything, and sharing exactly the same batch/substance.
And even then, there's the factor of varying bodies, varying minds, varying highs from experience to experience, and even from moment to moment.
And so, my conclusion is this -- there is no objective truth to any substance discussion at all, aside perhaps from discussion of the molecular components of a textbook-pure substance.
Might be worth remembering in terms of not getting into an argument/debate with someone about some drug or its effects, unless one just wants to be silly.
Peace...
First -- that "the way a substance feels" is totally subjective.
There is no objective component whatsoever to "how this drug feels" -- not only based on the current batch of it one has, but even from moment to moment! In other words, it remains subjective throughout the entire experience, and the next experience is equally as subjective and potentially varying throughout the experience.
Secondly -- that social agreement on "the way a substance feels" is still subjective.
Social agreement doesn't constitute actual objectivity, but rather "consensus subjectivity" or "consensus reality".
There is a very real possibility that a consensus "this stuff feels like shite" can make it feel like shite. Who knows how much of a drug high is placebo, or based on belief/expectation of how it's supposed to feel?
Thirdly -- that because of the above two factors, there is no objective component whatsoever to substance discussion, unless there has been a massive coordination among all discussion participants in bioassaying everything, and sharing exactly the same batch/substance.
And even then, there's the factor of varying bodies, varying minds, varying highs from experience to experience, and even from moment to moment.
And so, my conclusion is this -- there is no objective truth to any substance discussion at all, aside perhaps from discussion of the molecular components of a textbook-pure substance.
Might be worth remembering in terms of not getting into an argument/debate with someone about some drug or its effects, unless one just wants to be silly.
Peace...
