5 ms·

Bit of a meta comment, but I wonder why none of the ~30 posts here seem to actually be discussing the article. Something about the subject that motivates people

by n4r9 9y ago

Bit of a meta comment, but I wonder why none of the ~30 posts here seem to actually be discussing the article. Something about the subject that motivates people to state personal opinions/experiences?

booleandilemma 9y ago
I think drugs are like politics and religion - everyone has an opinion on them.
stepvhen 9y ago
because the article spends the first half taking a cynical stance of "but can we reeealy believe what people say about their experiences" and spends the latter half first talking about the authors experiences and then more or less stating that those experiences were wrong, or at least not the original intent of the indigenous culture. part of the PR problem with psychedelics is its easy status for cynical evaluation: "everything we hear is anecodotal, and furthermore the subject of discussion was tripping anyway, how can it be believable." it is probably hoped by those sharing experiences to provide reasonable sounding arguments to break through the cynicism.
entwife 9y ago
When the author said that Demeter was the goddess of corn, I nearly stopped reading. Facts: Demeter was a goddess of grain and harvest. Ergot (Claviceps species), and specifically ergot growing on rye (Secale cereale) has psychoactive properties; this ergot is liekly the source of psychedelic experience in the Elusinean Mysteries. Corn (Zea mays) was not introduced to Europe until the Columbian exchange; the fungus that grown on corn (smut, huitalacoche) is edible and not obviously psychoactive. Whether psychedelic/unity experience makes one a better person, is an interesting question. As, too, is the question the author asked in the second half of essay, exploring the meaning of "better person" in relation to contemporary Western and Shipibo Indian cultures.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  The author is from the UK, so they are probably using the British definition of corn[1] which can refer to many different kinds of grain. Using that definition of corn, the article doesn't seem to be inaccurate. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Etymology_1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Etymology_1
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered, so the word definitely was not applied to maize originally. This British usage still remains in place as far as I know. Those darned Brits - you'd think they invented the language, the way they sling it around any way they want!
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered Well, Middle English starts a couple centuries after the Norse settlement in North America, so that's not strictly true, even with the implict “by Europeans” restriction.
      - Nomentatus 9y ago
        Point taken, and worth noting, the English hadn't discovered the New World, but other Europeans, including Portugal, had. But maize wasn't grown anything like that far north!!! Maybe as far north as Missouri, where there were dense populations, but not further. So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then. But c'mon man, "the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500" so when the usage was established in England only Vikings had reached the New World, in Newfoundland, etc.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then. Yes, it's strictly true that maize would (almost certainly) be unknown, just not because North America hadn't been discovered by cultures in contact with England prior to the point of time in question.

by n4r9 9y ago

booleandilemma 9y ago

I think drugs are like politics and religion - everyone has an opinion on them.

stepvhen 9y ago

because the article spends the first half taking a cynical stance of "but can we reeealy believe what people say about their experiences" and spends the latter half first talking about the authors experiences and then more or less stating that those experiences were wrong, or at least not the original intent of the indigenous culture. part of the PR problem with psychedelics is its easy status for cynical evaluation: "everything we hear is anecodotal, and furthermore the subject of discussion was tripping anyway, how can it be believable." it is probably hoped by those sharing experiences to provide reasonable sounding arguments to break through the cynicism.

entwife 9y ago

When the author said that Demeter was the goddess of corn, I nearly stopped reading. Facts: Demeter was a goddess of grain and harvest. Ergot (Claviceps species), and specifically ergot growing on rye (Secale cereale) has psychoactive properties; this ergot is liekly the source of psychedelic experience in the Elusinean Mysteries. Corn (Zea mays) was not introduced to Europe until the Columbian exchange; the fungus that grown on corn (smut, huitalacoche) is edible and not obviously psychoactive. Whether psychedelic/unity experience makes one a better person, is an interesting question. As, too, is the question the author asked in the second half of essay, exploring the meaning of "better person" in relation to contemporary Western and Shipibo Indian cultures.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
The author is from the UK, so they are probably using the British definition of corn[1] which can refer to many different kinds of grain. Using that definition of corn, the article doesn't seem to be inaccurate. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Etymology_1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Etymology_1
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered, so the word definitely was not applied to maize originally. This British usage still remains in place as far as I know. Those darned Brits - you'd think they invented the language, the way they sling it around any way they want!
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered Well, Middle English starts a couple centuries after the Norse settlement in North America, so that's not strictly true, even with the implict “by Europeans” restriction.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Point taken, and worth noting, the English hadn't discovered the New World, but other Europeans, including Portugal, had. But maize wasn't grown anything like that far north!!! Maybe as far north as Missouri, where there were dense populations, but not further. So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then. But c'mon man, "the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500" so when the usage was established in England only Vikings had reached the New World, in Newfoundland, etc.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then. Yes, it's strictly true that maize would (almost certainly) be unknown, just not because North America hadn't been discovered by cultures in contact with England prior to the point of time in question.