4 ms·

So were the notes worth anything? What I always wonder about these types of experiences is whether the drug really does give you great insights, or it just tric

by jules 13y ago

So were the notes worth anything? What I always wonder about these types of experiences is whether the drug really does give you great insights, or it just tricks you into the feeling that you're having great insights.

emreas 13y ago
yes. I re-read them at least once a year and still glean insights from them. Some of it is silly, some is extremely powerful.
- jules 13y ago
  Can you give some examples?
Aloisius 13y ago
I also wonder if the experience alters you to such a degree that you continue to think your insights were great. The real test would be to see if a neutral third party thinks they're great.
cnp 13y ago
Its a combination of both, but don't discredit the power of wonder, however empty; its a healing, rejuvenating feeling even if nothing materially tangible comes from it.
coldtea 13y ago
>What I always wonder about these types of experiences is whether the drug really does give you great insights, or it just tricks you into the feeling that you're having great insights. Or it gives you great insights that are beyond the verbal level, not something that you just can jot down to sell afterwards to have people tell you how smart you are. That is, it lets you feel and see things differently, it doesn't put smart quotes on your mind or make you discover general relativity.
gnosis 13y ago
"So were the notes worth anything?" You mean were the worth anything when considered from the perspective of the ordinary state of consciousness? Clearly in one particular altered state of consciousness they were considered worth something. So the question becomes which state of consciousness trumps which other state of consciousness? Or which one gets to decide what's worthy and what's not? Often, people who see themselves as "hard headed realists" think it's obvious that the sober, oridinary state of consciousness is the one and only legitimate state of consciousness, and the rest are mere delusions, and not worthy of being trusted or relied upon for important decisions and the business of life. On the other hand, there are people who think that while in an altered state of consciousness, they can see through the bullshit of consensus reality and the ordinary state of consciousness. To them, it is the ordinary state of consciousness that is deluded, or even pathological or psychotic. Which one is right? And how are the products of and insights from these various states of consciousness to be judged? Can an insight gained in state of consciousness X be legitimately evaluated in state of consciousness Y? Do such evaluations even make sense? I'm not sure there are any easy answers to these questions.
- NhanH 13y ago
  Just to play devil's advocate here, I can claim that our ordinary state of consciousness is the most legitimate one (the one that is closest to reality, if there is such thing as objective reality), or at the very least the most useful one - otherwise we would have evolved for the different state of consciousness. The burden of proof would be on you to justify that the altered state of consciousness is indeed more in line with reality. Of course, this comes with the premise that consciousness is a necessity. And indeed, our needs nowadays might require a different state of consciousness, now that the very basic survival needs are generally fulfilled.
  - gnosis 13y ago
    "I can claim that our ordinary state of consciousness is the most legitimate one (the one that is closest to reality, if there is such thing as objective reality), or at the very least the most useful one - otherwise we would have evolved for the different state of consciousness." Is your view that that we have evolved for the ordinary state of consciousness a view that was made and evaluated in an ordinary state of consciousness? Should its worth be evaluated in an ordinary state of consciousness? How should we decide if it's valid? Why should something that is considered "most useful" be more valid than something that is considered "less useful"? An ant's view of the a human city may be very useful to it in terms of its own survival and that of its colony, but few would argue that it understands a human city on as profound and deep a level as a human would. Now, which of these views are "right" or "valid"? As for what's "in line with reality", would you consider a Picasso painting to be worthless compared to a photograph because the former is not very realistic compared to the latter? What about a song? Is the "in line with reality" standard applicable to a joke? (Sure, there are some jokes with are "funny because they're true", but that standard does not really apply to puns or jokes that rely on surprise for their effect. Are they worthless?) What about poetry? What about the value of a kiss? Finally, speaking of evolution, Terrence McKenna conjectured that human intelligence and evolution may have been influenced by an encouter with psychedelic mushrooms, whose spores were hardy enough to survive a long interstellar journey to earth, and whose consumption gave human ancestors an enormous amount of novel information.

by jules 13y ago

emreas 13y ago

yes. I re-read them at least once a year and still glean insights from them. Some of it is silly, some is extremely powerful.

jules 13y ago
Can you give some examples?

Aloisius 13y ago

I also wonder if the experience alters you to such a degree that you continue to think your insights were great. The real test would be to see if a neutral third party thinks they're great.

cnp 13y ago

Its a combination of both, but don't discredit the power of wonder, however empty; its a healing, rejuvenating feeling even if nothing materially tangible comes from it.

coldtea 13y ago

>What I always wonder about these types of experiences is whether the drug really does give you great insights, or it just tricks you into the feeling that you're having great insights. Or it gives you great insights that are beyond the verbal level, not something that you just can jot down to sell afterwards to have people tell you how smart you are. That is, it lets you feel and see things differently, it doesn't put smart quotes on your mind or make you discover general relativity.

gnosis 13y ago

"So were the notes worth anything?" You mean were the worth anything when considered from the perspective of the ordinary state of consciousness? Clearly in one particular altered state of consciousness they were considered worth something. So the question becomes which state of consciousness trumps which other state of consciousness? Or which one gets to decide what's worthy and what's not? Often, people who see themselves as "hard headed realists" think it's obvious that the sober, oridinary state of consciousness is the one and only legitimate state of consciousness, and the rest are mere delusions, and not worthy of being trusted or relied upon for important decisions and the business of life. On the other hand, there are people who think that while in an altered state of consciousness, they can see through the bullshit of consensus reality and the ordinary state of consciousness. To them, it is the ordinary state of consciousness that is deluded, or even pathological or psychotic. Which one is right? And how are the products of and insights from these various states of consciousness to be judged? Can an insight gained in state of consciousness X be legitimately evaluated in state of consciousness Y? Do such evaluations even make sense? I'm not sure there are any easy answers to these questions.

NhanH 13y ago
Just to play devil's advocate here, I can claim that our ordinary state of consciousness is the most legitimate one (the one that is closest to reality, if there is such thing as objective reality), or at the very least the most useful one - otherwise we would have evolved for the different state of consciousness. The burden of proof would be on you to justify that the altered state of consciousness is indeed more in line with reality. Of course, this comes with the premise that consciousness is a necessity. And indeed, our needs nowadays might require a different state of consciousness, now that the very basic survival needs are generally fulfilled.
- gnosis 13y ago
  "I can claim that our ordinary state of consciousness is the most legitimate one (the one that is closest to reality, if there is such thing as objective reality), or at the very least the most useful one - otherwise we would have evolved for the different state of consciousness." Is your view that that we have evolved for the ordinary state of consciousness a view that was made and evaluated in an ordinary state of consciousness? Should its worth be evaluated in an ordinary state of consciousness? How should we decide if it's valid? Why should something that is considered "most useful" be more valid than something that is considered "less useful"? An ant's view of the a human city may be very useful to it in terms of its own survival and that of its colony, but few would argue that it understands a human city on as profound and deep a level as a human would. Now, which of these views are "right" or "valid"? As for what's "in line with reality", would you consider a Picasso painting to be worthless compared to a photograph because the former is not very realistic compared to the latter? What about a song? Is the "in line with reality" standard applicable to a joke? (Sure, there are some jokes with are "funny because they're true", but that standard does not really apply to puns or jokes that rely on surprise for their effect. Are they worthless?) What about poetry? What about the value of a kiss? Finally, speaking of evolution, Terrence McKenna conjectured that human intelligence and evolution may have been influenced by an encouter with psychedelic mushrooms, whose spores were hardy enough to survive a long interstellar journey to earth, and whose consumption gave human ancestors an enormous amount of novel information.