5 ms·

It's not an insult. Psychedelics can profoundly change how someone perceives things. GEB has that sort profound shift in POV that many would associate with psyc

by mxkopy 4y ago

It's not an insult. Psychedelics can profoundly change how someone perceives things. GEB has that sort profound shift in POV that many would associate with psychedelics.

Brusco_RF 4y ago
Getting hit in the head can also change how someone perceives things. I think the above commenter was expressing frustration with the popular notion that taking drugs is some sort of shortcut to understanding consciousness, dynamic systems, etc
- andybak 4y ago
  "Shortcut" is overstating it. It can steer one's thinking in a direction that makes those topics seem more relevant or interesting. This in itself can be very valuable. > Getting hit on the head Well - there are recorded cases of brain damage unlocking abilities and aptitudes (albeit with great rarity). So probably not recommended. But rest assured, psychedelics are less painful, cause less damage and have a higher probability of beneficial effects.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  Note that I said "profound change" not "arbitrary change". What a faithful argument you've blessed us with. If you think drinking alcohol or taking cocaine has the same mental effects as psychedelics, then, I guess all I can say is don't talk about what you don't know.
  - cfraenkel 4y ago
    For someone who is complaining about someone supposedly not reading the exact words you wrote - you're awfully quick in putting words in their mouth. I don't see "alcohol" or "cocaine" mentioned, and yes, the public does put psychedelics in the generic term 'drugs'.
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      Okay, let's rephrase - if you think all drugs have the same mental effects, then I suggest you stop talking about what you don't know
widowlark 4y ago
The insult is the implication that thinking like this is somehow due to use of and exposure to psychedelics. Maybe some people need assistance in thinking deeply, Hofstadter certainly is not one of them.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  Do you think that you feel better than others for not taking drugs, and that this superiority is assailed when people who take drugs find common ground with one of your favorite thinkers? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for this blatant assholeishness and gatekeeping. Hofstadter doesn't own thinking about consciousness, thinking deeply, or thinking philosophically. As a matter of fact these sorts of things, to many people - many more than who have even heard of Hofstadter - associate them with psychedelics. So it's not unreasonable, it's not an insult, to think Hofstadter going pretty deeply into questions of meaning, putting mind-bending Escher works in his book, referring to the person that wrote GEB as different from Hofstadter himself, etc... is psychedelic. These are things that most people find eccentric, and what psychedelic users find psychedelic. The only way I could find insult in such comparisons is if I felt psychedelics themselves were morally inferior or insulting. I would examine that.
  - widowlark 4y ago
    Oh, to be clear it has nothing to do with morality. Similar to someone elses comment above, having the experience of thinking you can salsa dance while drunk and actually being able to salsa dance are very different. In the same way, Someone might gain some understanding of H's thinking by taking psychedelics, but that does not lead to the same understanding as actually processing, imagining and writing the material does. I also think you might be devolving a little into flamebait here, as it seems you have taken my statements personally but they were not directed in any way at you.
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      I took a lot of psychedelics in my life, and in that period I also read GEB quite religiously. And in my experience, I think it could have taken me a lot longer to empathize with the book than if I weren't taking psychedelics; not because of a false sense of understanding but because of a similarity in mental context. I felt like on LSD, I could look behind the curtain, so to speak. This isn't the same feeling as when you're drunk. Nothing else triggered my 'looking behind the curtain' sense as reading GEB. FFS Hofstadter had a place for the non-things - Tumbolia. To a sober person, it's obviously very silly. But on psychedelics, it's quite fantastical and intriguing. Imagine if, there was a place where non-things are. You begin to follow that thought more closely if you've taken psychedelics. You might leave it as nonsense if you haven't. So from my point of view, it devolved into flamebait the moment you said comparing GEB to psychedelics is insulting. Because to me, it makes sense on a lot of personal levels. As I've said in another comment. If you think drinking alcohol and taking psychedelics have similar mental effects. Then I suggest you stop talking about what you don't know.

by mxkopy 4y ago

It's not an insult. Psychedelics can profoundly change how someone perceives things. GEB has that sort profound shift in POV that many would associate with psychedelics.

Brusco_RF 4y ago

Getting hit in the head can also change how someone perceives things. I think the above commenter was expressing frustration with the popular notion that taking drugs is some sort of shortcut to understanding consciousness, dynamic systems, etc

andybak 4y ago
"Shortcut" is overstating it. It can steer one's thinking in a direction that makes those topics seem more relevant or interesting. This in itself can be very valuable. > Getting hit on the head Well - there are recorded cases of brain damage unlocking abilities and aptitudes (albeit with great rarity). So probably not recommended. But rest assured, psychedelics are less painful, cause less damage and have a higher probability of beneficial effects.
mxkopy 4y ago
Note that I said "profound change" not "arbitrary change". What a faithful argument you've blessed us with. If you think drinking alcohol or taking cocaine has the same mental effects as psychedelics, then, I guess all I can say is don't talk about what you don't know.
- cfraenkel 4y ago
  For someone who is complaining about someone supposedly not reading the exact words you wrote - you're awfully quick in putting words in their mouth. I don't see "alcohol" or "cocaine" mentioned, and yes, the public does put psychedelics in the generic term 'drugs'.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    Okay, let's rephrase - if you think all drugs have the same mental effects, then I suggest you stop talking about what you don't know

widowlark 4y ago

The insult is the implication that thinking like this is somehow due to use of and exposure to psychedelics. Maybe some people need assistance in thinking deeply, Hofstadter certainly is not one of them.

mxkopy 4y ago
Do you think that you feel better than others for not taking drugs, and that this superiority is assailed when people who take drugs find common ground with one of your favorite thinkers? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for this blatant assholeishness and gatekeeping. Hofstadter doesn't own thinking about consciousness, thinking deeply, or thinking philosophically. As a matter of fact these sorts of things, to many people - many more than who have even heard of Hofstadter - associate them with psychedelics. So it's not unreasonable, it's not an insult, to think Hofstadter going pretty deeply into questions of meaning, putting mind-bending Escher works in his book, referring to the person that wrote GEB as different from Hofstadter himself, etc... is psychedelic. These are things that most people find eccentric, and what psychedelic users find psychedelic. The only way I could find insult in such comparisons is if I felt psychedelics themselves were morally inferior or insulting. I would examine that.
- widowlark 4y ago
  Oh, to be clear it has nothing to do with morality. Similar to someone elses comment above, having the experience of thinking you can salsa dance while drunk and actually being able to salsa dance are very different. In the same way, Someone might gain some understanding of H's thinking by taking psychedelics, but that does not lead to the same understanding as actually processing, imagining and writing the material does. I also think you might be devolving a little into flamebait here, as it seems you have taken my statements personally but they were not directed in any way at you.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    I took a lot of psychedelics in my life, and in that period I also read GEB quite religiously. And in my experience, I think it could have taken me a lot longer to empathize with the book than if I weren't taking psychedelics; not because of a false sense of understanding but because of a similarity in mental context. I felt like on LSD, I could look behind the curtain, so to speak. This isn't the same feeling as when you're drunk. Nothing else triggered my 'looking behind the curtain' sense as reading GEB. FFS Hofstadter had a place for the non-things - Tumbolia. To a sober person, it's obviously very silly. But on psychedelics, it's quite fantastical and intriguing. Imagine if, there was a place where non-things are. You begin to follow that thought more closely if you've taken psychedelics. You might leave it as nonsense if you haven't. So from my point of view, it devolved into flamebait the moment you said comparing GEB to psychedelics is insulting. Because to me, it makes sense on a lot of personal levels. As I've said in another comment. If you think drinking alcohol and taking psychedelics have similar mental effects. Then I suggest you stop talking about what you don't know.