6 ms·

4. Drugs are boring. 5. ... but that's all there is. 6. Derelict insanity. (4 and 5 are direct quotes from people I know, one of whom went to #6. I've known

4. Drugs are boring. 5. ... but that's all there is. 6. Derelict insanity. (4 and 5 are direct quotes from people I know, one of whom went to #6. I've known people who use frequently and never burn, but there's a certain pattern of use that seems bent that way. The "all there is" mentality is a sign of someone on a dangerous path.)

contingencies 14y ago
Insanity is a highly subjective notion and in my view definitively anti-hacker. Why? Sanity is a mob-rule, society-dictated perspective, with no clear definition. Yes, 'sanity' in the eyes of society is useful within social systems. However, if one continues to 'function' (eat/sleep/do stuff interesting/be happy/not inflict pain and harm repetitively upon undeserving* others), then what's the problem? My point is that conceptually, we should all support alternative mental modes of engagement, regardless of society's perspective, as long as they are harmless. We should support differences, not crush them. In heterogeneity lies strength, and humans' great strength is their capacity of abstract thought and communication. Historically, we know that brilliant art and science derive largely from people who have been labelled insane by contemporary society. Consider this when choosing to deploy words like 'insane'. * Let's not get in to a greater discussion of law here.
- akiselev 14y ago
  The problem though is that it is not harmless. Psychedelics blast your brain chemistry and can have extremely unpredictable consequences, especially with continued use. The effects can spread to not just your life but to the lives of those you care about. Personally, I think everyone should experience psychedelics when they're ready but to think that they are harmless is dangerous. The effects of drugs are like having an addiction: you won't know at all what it's like until you try it and once you do, there's no going back, for better or for worse
  - cnp 14y ago
    Agreed, but in a slightly different context: The mixture of psychedelics and many prescribed pharmaceuticals is a danger not many know about, particularly SSRI's. Due to this lack of information the dangers of a bad reaction --psychological or physiological-- are very real; in the case of such, it's always the illegal drug that is blamed, regardless of it's actual toxicity. In the case of Psilocybin or LSD or even DMT (the "nuclear bomb" of psychedelics) actual, measurable neurotoxicity is negligible if non-existant. (That being said, one can never be sure what one gets from the street, but in a controlled laboratory setting this is certainly the case.)
- aneth4 14y ago
  Sanity does not mean following the rules or being normal, and the concept is not antihacker. Loss of sanity is generally a miserable sad state where the ability to judge reality to either one's own or other's satisfaction is compromised. Do not mistake insanity for interesting and creative. Heavy drug abuse can cause major permanent brain malfunction that results in a real compromise of sanity, and the result is not pretty. These HN drug threads are always filled with fearless commentary like this by young people who have never seen the before and after.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  By insanity I mean, "severe mental illness", which I don't think you understand (and you should be thankful for that). It seems to be extremely painful for the individual, and it's horrible for the people around that person. I don't classify people with occasional (but harmless) strange thoughts or paranormal beliefs as "insane". That's part of being human. Over a billion people believe that a virgin birth occurred over 2000 years ago. I personally think they're wrong, but I wouldn't call them insane or delusional. That belief, standing alone, is harmless. I have no problem with people who choose to explore alternate states of consciousness, whether through meditation, brainwave entrainment, sensory deprivation, or psychedelics. I don't think they're "insane" for doing so. Most people who use LSD or psilocybin come out of the experience with no lasting harm. Albert Hoffman, who discovered LSD, used it into his 80s with no health problems. (He lived to be 102.) However, if you spend significant time in a hipster enclave (e.g. Williamsburg) you see the long-term effects for people of certain mental patterns. The problem is that the people who are most attracted to frequent psychedelic use are also those, in my opinion, most vulnerable to the mental problems that this lifestyle can exacerbate. Cocaine and alcohol are extremely dangerous, but everyone knows that. I think the danger of psychedelics (which are biologically non-toxic) is that they can appeal to an experience-chasing mentality, and that they sometimes become entwined with a pattern of self-medication for an existing mental problem that would be better treated by a real psychiatrist. I've altered my consciousness a lot over the course of my life, and won't get into details (real name) but I haven't used any of these drugs for years. I don't even drink, except for an occasional beer with dinner. Drugs are not necessary. The way I think of it is that altered consciousness is like a wilderness. Meditation is like riding your bike into it, in the sense that if you're not in shape, you won't go very far but you'll be able to go back out. Keep riding, and you'll be able to go deeper over time. Psychedelics are more like hitch-hiking. You catch a ride, can go deep into the thick of it, and end up with no idea where you've landed. You hope you can find a safe ride back. Most of the time, you get a ride back and you're fine, but the probability of disaster is not zero.
  - contingencies 14y ago
    Interesting reply. I like your hitch-hiking metaphor, but I would extend it by saying "sometimes you decide life is better in the new place and never choose to return, or do so only sporadically". Certainly this mirrors people's travel in the physical realm more closely, and it is hard to deny that all forms of experience leave lasting impressions on us... While I certainly respect your experience, views and choices, I would highlight the fact that you are looking back upon experiences of the past and the human memory is a prickly beast. Further, wherever you make the statement that something is "not necessary", it's very much loaded. I think it's sometimes difficult to empathise with or second-guess other peoples' (like your former self's) life goals, experience, motivations-of-the-moment and general situation. Remember: children and many free thinking types, such as artists and hackers, can be largely motivated by curiosity, and that's a motivational asset that it's probably fair to say is rarer than hen's teeth in the adult population. Also, quite unlike some foreign cultures that celebrate serious schizophrenia (eg. India) and other more evident conditions, today in the west the dominant perspective on insanity seems to be largely defined by two factors. (1) An outgrowth of the historic western response (ie. 'mentally ill' people are 'treated' to return to what is assumed to be a preferable 'norm', or otherwise doped-up on antipsychotics that can prevent them from fully functioning)... the net message here is 'something is wrong with you', and 'the rest of society is right'. (2) Led by big pharma, aggressive Western-led drug marketing, and post-industrial-era 9-5 schedules (not to talk of related issues of mortgages, debt, lack of free time/exercise/social outlet/access to daylight) loads of people IMHO spuriously consider themselves to have depression, ADD, or some other 'illness' that in the past was either not present in society or fell in to the regular realm of human experience. Now I'm not dismissing that some people really have extreme mental situations that can cause social or personal problems, but I am saying that a lot of them could probably improve just as much if not more by moving, switching routines, eating differently, exercising more, or being allowed by their relevant authority figures to operate outside of the artificially imposed constraints of an Orwellian post-industrial-era clockbound mass-psychological consensual hallucination under high velocity, socially charged 24x7 multi-channel surveillance of themselves, by themselves/employer/school/state/cult/etc. (TLDR;) Let's just cut to the chase here: often, these people can start to realise the possibilities outside of their current mode of experience by taking a psychoactive drug, and it can do them real good, or at least provide food for thought. Necessary? Let each be their own judge.
- pnathan 14y ago
  > Insanity is a highly subjective notion ... Quantatively perhaps, but qualitatively, insanity is not subjective. It's a miserable, miserable experience I would wish upon no one, and wish no one would experience. Weird is fine, funky beliefs are fine, insanity is a different quality altogether.

contingencies 14y ago

Insanity is a highly subjective notion and in my view definitively anti-hacker. Why? Sanity is a mob-rule, society-dictated perspective, with no clear definition. Yes, 'sanity' in the eyes of society is useful within social systems. However, if one continues to 'function' (eat/sleep/do stuff interesting/be happy/not inflict pain and harm repetitively upon undeserving* others), then what's the problem? My point is that conceptually, we should all support alternative mental modes of engagement, regardless of society's perspective, as long as they are harmless. We should support differences, not crush them. In heterogeneity lies strength, and humans' great strength is their capacity of abstract thought and communication. Historically, we know that brilliant art and science derive largely from people who have been labelled insane by contemporary society. Consider this when choosing to deploy words like 'insane'. * Let's not get in to a greater discussion of law here.

akiselev 14y ago
The problem though is that it is not harmless. Psychedelics blast your brain chemistry and can have extremely unpredictable consequences, especially with continued use. The effects can spread to not just your life but to the lives of those you care about. Personally, I think everyone should experience psychedelics when they're ready but to think that they are harmless is dangerous. The effects of drugs are like having an addiction: you won't know at all what it's like until you try it and once you do, there's no going back, for better or for worse
- cnp 14y ago
  Agreed, but in a slightly different context: The mixture of psychedelics and many prescribed pharmaceuticals is a danger not many know about, particularly SSRI's. Due to this lack of information the dangers of a bad reaction --psychological or physiological-- are very real; in the case of such, it's always the illegal drug that is blamed, regardless of it's actual toxicity. In the case of Psilocybin or LSD or even DMT (the "nuclear bomb" of psychedelics) actual, measurable neurotoxicity is negligible if non-existant. (That being said, one can never be sure what one gets from the street, but in a controlled laboratory setting this is certainly the case.)
aneth4 14y ago
Sanity does not mean following the rules or being normal, and the concept is not antihacker. Loss of sanity is generally a miserable sad state where the ability to judge reality to either one's own or other's satisfaction is compromised. Do not mistake insanity for interesting and creative. Heavy drug abuse can cause major permanent brain malfunction that results in a real compromise of sanity, and the result is not pretty. These HN drug threads are always filled with fearless commentary like this by young people who have never seen the before and after.
michaelochurch 14y ago
By insanity I mean, "severe mental illness", which I don't think you understand (and you should be thankful for that). It seems to be extremely painful for the individual, and it's horrible for the people around that person. I don't classify people with occasional (but harmless) strange thoughts or paranormal beliefs as "insane". That's part of being human. Over a billion people believe that a virgin birth occurred over 2000 years ago. I personally think they're wrong, but I wouldn't call them insane or delusional. That belief, standing alone, is harmless. I have no problem with people who choose to explore alternate states of consciousness, whether through meditation, brainwave entrainment, sensory deprivation, or psychedelics. I don't think they're "insane" for doing so. Most people who use LSD or psilocybin come out of the experience with no lasting harm. Albert Hoffman, who discovered LSD, used it into his 80s with no health problems. (He lived to be 102.) However, if you spend significant time in a hipster enclave (e.g. Williamsburg) you see the long-term effects for people of certain mental patterns. The problem is that the people who are most attracted to frequent psychedelic use are also those, in my opinion, most vulnerable to the mental problems that this lifestyle can exacerbate. Cocaine and alcohol are extremely dangerous, but everyone knows that. I think the danger of psychedelics (which are biologically non-toxic) is that they can appeal to an experience-chasing mentality, and that they sometimes become entwined with a pattern of self-medication for an existing mental problem that would be better treated by a real psychiatrist. I've altered my consciousness a lot over the course of my life, and won't get into details (real name) but I haven't used any of these drugs for years. I don't even drink, except for an occasional beer with dinner. Drugs are not necessary. The way I think of it is that altered consciousness is like a wilderness. Meditation is like riding your bike into it, in the sense that if you're not in shape, you won't go very far but you'll be able to go back out. Keep riding, and you'll be able to go deeper over time. Psychedelics are more like hitch-hiking. You catch a ride, can go deep into the thick of it, and end up with no idea where you've landed. You hope you can find a safe ride back. Most of the time, you get a ride back and you're fine, but the probability of disaster is not zero.
- contingencies 14y ago
  Interesting reply. I like your hitch-hiking metaphor, but I would extend it by saying "sometimes you decide life is better in the new place and never choose to return, or do so only sporadically". Certainly this mirrors people's travel in the physical realm more closely, and it is hard to deny that all forms of experience leave lasting impressions on us... While I certainly respect your experience, views and choices, I would highlight the fact that you are looking back upon experiences of the past and the human memory is a prickly beast. Further, wherever you make the statement that something is "not necessary", it's very much loaded. I think it's sometimes difficult to empathise with or second-guess other peoples' (like your former self's) life goals, experience, motivations-of-the-moment and general situation. Remember: children and many free thinking types, such as artists and hackers, can be largely motivated by curiosity, and that's a motivational asset that it's probably fair to say is rarer than hen's teeth in the adult population. Also, quite unlike some foreign cultures that celebrate serious schizophrenia (eg. India) and other more evident conditions, today in the west the dominant perspective on insanity seems to be largely defined by two factors. (1) An outgrowth of the historic western response (ie. 'mentally ill' people are 'treated' to return to what is assumed to be a preferable 'norm', or otherwise doped-up on antipsychotics that can prevent them from fully functioning)... the net message here is 'something is wrong with you', and 'the rest of society is right'. (2) Led by big pharma, aggressive Western-led drug marketing, and post-industrial-era 9-5 schedules (not to talk of related issues of mortgages, debt, lack of free time/exercise/social outlet/access to daylight) loads of people IMHO spuriously consider themselves to have depression, ADD, or some other 'illness' that in the past was either not present in society or fell in to the regular realm of human experience. Now I'm not dismissing that some people really have extreme mental situations that can cause social or personal problems, but I am saying that a lot of them could probably improve just as much if not more by moving, switching routines, eating differently, exercising more, or being allowed by their relevant authority figures to operate outside of the artificially imposed constraints of an Orwellian post-industrial-era clockbound mass-psychological consensual hallucination under high velocity, socially charged 24x7 multi-channel surveillance of themselves, by themselves/employer/school/state/cult/etc. (TLDR;) Let's just cut to the chase here: often, these people can start to realise the possibilities outside of their current mode of experience by taking a psychoactive drug, and it can do them real good, or at least provide food for thought. Necessary? Let each be their own judge.
pnathan 14y ago
> Insanity is a highly subjective notion ... Quantatively perhaps, but qualitatively, insanity is not subjective. It's a miserable, miserable experience I would wish upon no one, and wish no one would experience. Weird is fine, funky beliefs are fine, insanity is a different quality altogether.