6 ms·
First of all, there is a wide delta of difference between taking these substances recreationally and in a clinical setting. Any clinician involved with these tr
by chronofar 7y ago
First of all, there is a wide delta of difference between taking these substances recreationally and in a clinical setting. Any clinician involved with these trials is not going to equivocate their use in treating depression with your weekend in the woods with your friends.
Second if we are talking recreationally I have met many, many people on a third path there: the understanding that psychedelics offer a beautiful alternate window with which to perceive things and they can tend to have a heightened awareness and appreciation while otherwise being just like many in that they answer slack messages or [insert mundane work task here].
Thirdly the mind in question is more important than psychedelics or slack messages. One can view either as a hellish prison or a wonderful gift, and in either case this perspective is likely to prove itself out. There is no magic cure to gift inner peace, nor is inner peace at all waking hours a realistic or worthwhile goal for anyone. This does not make psychedelics "bullshit," it means you need more to cultivate a rich inner life than a few altered state experiences. This should not be surprising (though to be sure it is quite often).
Fourthly, when you say:
> Most people realize that their psychonautic journey is at best leading them in circles, and at worst is causing their life to spiral down the drain. So they give it up, get a job without 9pm slack messages (or find a better way to adjust to stress), marry someone who isn't constantly on the verge of cheating, start doing regular exercise, and generally find a way to settle into a reasonably balanced life.
Have you asked these people how they came to their better life there, their job without a 9pm slack message, their healthy marriage, healthy lifestyle, etc? Many would likely attribute at least part of this found balance to their experience with psychedelics. Many people in these trials, a majority in fact, count these experiences among their top 5 most profound life experiences. That's astounding, and anecdotally I've met many more who fit that bill, and of course there are other famous cases who parrot this like Steve Jobs. Psychedelics are not an answer, but they often do illuminate where paths were previously hidden.
I believe your cynicism has sliced off only a portion of the truth here and tilted focus in the wrong directions.
- shlant 7y ago> "I believe your cynicism has sliced off only a portion of the truth here and tilted focus in the wrong directions." I think his cynicism is completely warranted considering how many people are starting to view psychedelics as a panacea. Do psychedelics offer an experience that could be part of, or even a spark a greater shift? Sure. Could psychedelics provide temporary relief from things like depression and anxiety? Sure. Do most people approach things that are talked about as a solution to life's most difficult problems in a moderate way? Very rarely. Are there VERY REAL and SIGNIFICANT downsides to the misuse of psychedelics? Absolutely. Bad trips are very real and with real, long-term consequences. From my experience with these substances and from my observations of many people who have also used them, I think we should approach the subject from a cautious point of view at the very least. We can throw around studies all we want, but as you pointed out, these are almost all done in a CLINICAL SETTING which is probably the most relevant aspect to the outcome of psychedelic experiences.
- antoinevg 7y agoI'm so sorry you are being downvoted. The current enthusiasm for psychedelics is making it very difficult to talk publicly about all the dimensions of a highly nuanced topic.
- taurath 7y agoI haven't heard almost anyone say its a panacea, but are still advocating for their consideration as there's plenty of people who will advocate its always a bad idea.
- chronofar 7y agoAll of what you said here is true, but that does not equate to "bullshit." Some level of skepticism is of course warranted. Complete dismissal is not.
- shlant 7y agowho is saying "bullshit"? I think I am making a pretty reasonable argument that seems to fit into "Some level of skepticism is of course warranted".