What basis, I wonder, does Stephen Best rely on to imply that psychedelics can be properly used to critically examine reality? Delusion is not a reliable platform from which to launch such an investigation.
The scientific literature is abundant with research supporting what I wrote. Here's just one example to get you started if you'd like to do some research on your own. With some confidence, I can assure you that the use of psychedelics does not necessarily entail delusion.
I don't know enough about neuroscience or medicine to properly evaluate these articles. But thank you for sharing them anyway. Perhaps others will find them persuasive. It's possible that controlled doses of psychedelics may be beneficial for some people who suffer from some types of mental disorders. Time will tell. My personal experience with psychedelics (psilocybin and LSD) taught me that such drugs are as likely to be dangerous as helpful. When I first took these drugs (having bought into counterculture narratives), I did think I was having a mystical experience (which could be intensely beautiful or terrifying and sometimes both). But with repeated use the experience grew stale. I came to conclude that the feelings of love and oneness I experienced were not real. They were delusional. And while there was sometimes a residual effect of believing that they were real, it didn't last. Listening to Mahler might be more intense on psychedelics but so might watching a shadow move across a wall as the sun sets. Such experiences while on psychedelics can make one feel like the universe is unfolding before one's eyes, but all that is unfolding is intoxication, which of course undermines our rational thinking. If the experiences were real, then listening simply to Mahler or watching that shadow (without the aid of psychedelics) should be able to produce the same euphoria. In my experience they don't, which neither diminishes Mahler nor the value of doing nothing. Regards.
Yes. My personal experiences, it seems, were more positive than yours. All experiences are perception, I suggest. In my view, an experience influenced or caused by drugs is just as valid as one that is not. Your mind doesn't 'know' what is valid or not. It all depend on the experience. Also, all experiences fade, even something so profound as the loss of loved one, time will heal. And, as you know, acid and peyote don't "intoxicate" like alcohol. At any rate, to get a positive benefit from psychedelics, it's important to plan the 'trip' as it is to drop acid. A trip at a slaughterhouse will have a different effect than one in an old growth forest.
Thanks to Nicholas Kadysh for this article. My only quibble is the pervasive, politically necessary notion implied in the article that psychedelics should be used only as "a potentially revolutionary new tool in the treatment of mental illness." That's how their use is being 'sold.'
Psychedelics can be used recreationally to great effect and enjoyment. Mahler on acid is a profoundly different experience than Gustav on Merlot.
As well, most people's values and beliefs are shaped by childhood indoctrination, marketing, and propaganda and not by evidence, education, and rational and critical thinking. Most of our beliefs are imposed on us by other people to serve their interests no matter how well-meaning, not ours. Psychedelics are a means to give people the ability to critically examine their indoctrination and externally imposed biases and misunderstandings, if they choose.
Psychedelics, I suggest too, can be an important aid to education and creativity, and improving our relationships with others.
There are enormous benefits to be had with psychedelics, only ignorance, fear, and political cowardice prevent us investigating them.
Can there be problems with using psychedelics? Yes. But they can all be ameliorated. There are problems with excessive Merlot, too.
I've been aware of this industry for a while and have hopes it may also provide a new tool for treating opioid addiction, another social scourge that has deeply affected our family.
This is a puff piece, not journalism, and the phrasing is often awkward..."these substances can alleviate real human suffering." As opposed to what, fake human suffering? "The fact that 2020 has been a banner year for mental illness." Is it a fact or just a media cliche? An why the triumphant note?
What basis, I wonder, does Stephen Best rely on to imply that psychedelics can be properly used to critically examine reality? Delusion is not a reliable platform from which to launch such an investigation.
The scientific literature is abundant with research supporting what I wrote. Here's just one example to get you started if you'd like to do some research on your own. With some confidence, I can assure you that the use of psychedelics does not necessarily entail delusion.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00129/full
I don't know enough about neuroscience or medicine to properly evaluate these articles. But thank you for sharing them anyway. Perhaps others will find them persuasive. It's possible that controlled doses of psychedelics may be beneficial for some people who suffer from some types of mental disorders. Time will tell. My personal experience with psychedelics (psilocybin and LSD) taught me that such drugs are as likely to be dangerous as helpful. When I first took these drugs (having bought into counterculture narratives), I did think I was having a mystical experience (which could be intensely beautiful or terrifying and sometimes both). But with repeated use the experience grew stale. I came to conclude that the feelings of love and oneness I experienced were not real. They were delusional. And while there was sometimes a residual effect of believing that they were real, it didn't last. Listening to Mahler might be more intense on psychedelics but so might watching a shadow move across a wall as the sun sets. Such experiences while on psychedelics can make one feel like the universe is unfolding before one's eyes, but all that is unfolding is intoxication, which of course undermines our rational thinking. If the experiences were real, then listening simply to Mahler or watching that shadow (without the aid of psychedelics) should be able to produce the same euphoria. In my experience they don't, which neither diminishes Mahler nor the value of doing nothing. Regards.
Yes. My personal experiences, it seems, were more positive than yours. All experiences are perception, I suggest. In my view, an experience influenced or caused by drugs is just as valid as one that is not. Your mind doesn't 'know' what is valid or not. It all depend on the experience. Also, all experiences fade, even something so profound as the loss of loved one, time will heal. And, as you know, acid and peyote don't "intoxicate" like alcohol. At any rate, to get a positive benefit from psychedelics, it's important to plan the 'trip' as it is to drop acid. A trip at a slaughterhouse will have a different effect than one in an old growth forest.
This might interest you, too. https://time.com/5278036/michael-pollan-psychedelic-drugs/
Thanks to Nicholas Kadysh for this article. My only quibble is the pervasive, politically necessary notion implied in the article that psychedelics should be used only as "a potentially revolutionary new tool in the treatment of mental illness." That's how their use is being 'sold.'
Psychedelics can be used recreationally to great effect and enjoyment. Mahler on acid is a profoundly different experience than Gustav on Merlot.
As well, most people's values and beliefs are shaped by childhood indoctrination, marketing, and propaganda and not by evidence, education, and rational and critical thinking. Most of our beliefs are imposed on us by other people to serve their interests no matter how well-meaning, not ours. Psychedelics are a means to give people the ability to critically examine their indoctrination and externally imposed biases and misunderstandings, if they choose.
Psychedelics, I suggest too, can be an important aid to education and creativity, and improving our relationships with others.
There are enormous benefits to be had with psychedelics, only ignorance, fear, and political cowardice prevent us investigating them.
Can there be problems with using psychedelics? Yes. But they can all be ameliorated. There are problems with excessive Merlot, too.
I've been aware of this industry for a while and have hopes it may also provide a new tool for treating opioid addiction, another social scourge that has deeply affected our family.
This is a puff piece, not journalism, and the phrasing is often awkward..."these substances can alleviate real human suffering." As opposed to what, fake human suffering? "The fact that 2020 has been a banner year for mental illness." Is it a fact or just a media cliche? An why the triumphant note?