Psychedelics and spiritual experiences

[aitm]

The use of drugs and trance by a shaman are prehistoric realities.  Usually however, the use of drugs was controlled by social convention, they weren't for recreation or to induce sociopathy, as they are today.

a rather side paragraph statement though true, which adds nor detracts anything to the statement it attached itself to.

[GSOgymrat]

I would not be surprised if any psychedelic experience was closely related to the "spiritual" upbringings of that culture/religion. I am unaware of anyone conceiving an idea without a background to support it. By that I would mean that it is probable that early man could imagine a type of floating boat by simply observing ants floating on a stick in a river, but not likely he could envision a cruise liner.

One reason I doubt psychedelic experiences are actually "mystical" is that knowledge isn't accessed that wasn't already known to the individual on at least a subconscious level. People may have insights by reassembling the puzzle pieces of their consciousness but the pieces themselves are the same.

[Baruch]

One reason I doubt psychedelic experiences are actually "mystical" is that knowledge isn't accessed that wasn't already known to the individual on at least a subconscious level. People may have insights by reassembling the puzzle pieces of their consciousness but the pieces themselves are the same.

That is the archetype theory.  And it may be right (see how many actual different stories we have in fiction).  But in that case, if we are standard jigsaw puzzles, is that any reason to not play the game?  The ace up the sleeve though, isn't the subconscious, but the unconscious.  There be monsters in there.

[Cavebear]

So, you were married to one woman and that gives you knowledge of all other women?

Doesn't take marriage...

[Baruch]

Doesn't take marriage...

Correct.  I like women, but they do share some characteristics, as men do with each other.  The demand that we treat every person completely individually, and not even the same person, moment to moment ... simply defies any practicality.

But yes, as a human being, I do more or less understand all other human beings.  And to the extent I have spent years around men, or years around women, then to that extent, I have some understanding of them.

The above is for both Unbeliever and Cavebear.

[Baruch]

a rather side paragraph statement though true, which adds nor detracts anything to the statement it attached itself to.

I am not advocating shamanistic practices BTW.  But modern society is notably feral compared to previous civilizations, in regard to "eat, drink and be merry".

[Cavebear]

Correct.  I like women, but they do share some characteristics, as men do with each other.  The demand that we treat every person completely individually, and not even the same person, moment to moment ... simply defies any practicality.

But yes, as a human being, I do more or less understand all other human beings.  And to the extent I have spent years around men, or years around women, then to that extent, I have some understanding of them.

The above is for both Unbeliever and Cavebear.

I merely pointed out that relational interpersonal problems are not always gender based.  Same gender ones are also troublesome, sometimes. 

[Baruch]

I merely pointed out that relational interpersonal problems are not always gender based.  Same gender ones are also troublesome, sometimes.

OK.  I agree that the "Gender" thing isn't all inclusive.  Personality is a spectrum disorder ;-)

[Cavebear]

OK.  I agree that the "Gender" thing isn't all inclusive.  Personality is a spectrum disorder ;-)

No.  That would mean that personality, per se, would be a disorder.  Try again.

[aitm]

I am not advocating shamanistic practices BTW.  But modern society is notably feral compared to previous civilizations, in regard to "eat, drink and be merry".

I truly have no idea what that means relatively.

[GSOgymrat]

That is the archetype theory.  And it may be right (see how many actual different stories we have in fiction).  But in that case, if we are standard jigsaw puzzles, is that any reason to not play the game?  The ace up the sleeve though, isn't the subconscious, but the unconscious.  There be monsters in there.

I like my puzzle pieces where they are.

[Baruch]

No.  That would mean that personality, per se, would be a disorder.  Try again.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/personality-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20354463

Cluster B pretty much covers everyone I know.

[SGOS]

Michael Pollan, the author of the book discussed in this thread, was interviewed on NPR yesterday by a woman anchor who treated him with great deference.  She never prodded him when he got into unsubstantiated claims.  By his own admission, he would preface such claims, with statements like, "I know this sounds like I could be delusional, but I believe these things because I experienced them first hand.  And yes he did sound delusional, as delusional as my long ago hippy friend who told me that he once saw the Devil when he was smoking marijuana.

Michael Pollen was more apologetic for his unsubstantiated claims than the typical Christian, but he was every bit as adamant in believing them to be real as a typical Christian.  Although, he was careful to use, "I believe it to be true," rather than "I know it to be true,"... "because I experienced it first hand."

No matter how much elation you experience while describing your new found knowledge about unsubstantiated things, rules of science still apply:  "Verification talks, and bullshit walks."  I was not impressed hearing him in person.  Back in the 70s, I had similar interests, and I read a couple of books on LSD psychotherapy.  Remember LSD?  People were going bonkers over the stuff, having hallucinations, and strange thoughts, and watching the walls of the room moving.  As you might have guessed, LSD psychotherapy didn't go anyplace.  There were probably a few insights gained here and there, but the stuff was too unpredictable to be a source of accurate self knowledge.  But many people were as evangelical about it as Michael Pollan, who is now drawing his own conclusions about something that was laid to rest 50 years ago.  There is always room to reopen discarded theories, but Pollan didn't reveal anything more concrete in his interview than LSD's biggest advocate, Timothy Leary, when he decided to "tune in and drop out."

Personally, I would urge caution before taking Pollen seriously.  I'm sure he means well, and he seemed like a nice enough guy, but that's not considered evidence in a laboratory.

[GSOgymrat]

Michael Pollan, the author of the book discussed in this thread, was interviewed on NPR yesterday by a woman anchor who treated him with great deference.  She never prodded him when he got into unsubstantiated claims.  By his own admission, he would preface such claims, with statements like, "I know this sounds like I could be delusional, but I believe these things because I experienced them first hand.  And yes he did sound delusional, as delusional as my long ago hippy friend who told me that he once saw the Devil when he was smoking marijuana.

Michael Pollen was more apologetic for his unsubstantiated claims than the typical Christian, but he was every bit as adamant in believing them to be real as a typical Christian.  Although, he was careful to use, "I believe it to be true," rather than "I know it to be true,"... "because I experienced it first hand."

No matter how much elation you experience while describing your new found knowledge about unsubstantiated things, rules of science still apply:  "Verification talks, and bullshit walks."  I was not impressed hearing him in person.  Back in the 70s, I had similar interests, and I read a couple of books on LSD psychotherapy.  Remember LSD?  People were going bonkers over the stuff, having hallucinations, and strange thoughts, and watching the walls of the room moving.  As you might have guessed, LSD psychotherapy didn't go anyplace.  There were probably a few insights gained here and there, but the stuff was too unpredictable to be a source of accurate self knowledge.  But many people were as evangelical about it as Michael Pollan, who is now drawing his own conclusions about something that was laid to rest 50 years ago.  There is always room to reopen discarded theories, but Pollan didn't reveal anything more concrete in his interview than LSD's biggest advocate, Timothy Leary, when he decided to "tune in and drop out."

Personally, I would urge caution before taking Pollen seriously.  I'm sure he means well, and he seemed like a nice enough guy, but that's not considered evidence in a laboratory.

Part of the appeal of the book is that Pollan is just a typical guy who explores the unfamiliar world of psychedelics and documents the colorful characters he meets and his unusual personal experiences. He interviews scientists but the book itself isn't scientific. Pollan is professor at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and the book is well written as travelgue.

The problem with scientific research using psychedelics is that it is very difficult to perform double-blind studies, which are the foundation of testing for pharmaceuticals. Both the patient and the researchers can know almost instantly whether the medication is a psychedelic or a placebo. In addition, it is difficult to isolate a single variable. A psychedelic/therapeutic session is not simply a matter of ingesting a chemical; it is only successful with the proper guidance, and this can be a subjective matter. People using psychedelics are highly suggestible which further complicates research.

However, psychedelics are demonstrated to have a therapeutic effect and change behavior. A single guided psilocybin session is sufficient to remove depression from 80% of cancer patients. A study of smoking cessation found that most participants stopped smoking and was more effective than other smoking cessation interventions. I find it interesting that those who reported the most complete mystical experiences had the best outcomes. It is akin to religion, where changes in behavior are contingent on conviction. But, as effective as psychedelics may be in treating addiction or existential anxiety, pharmaceutical companies might not be interested in psychedelics. The LSD patent expired long ago, and psilocybin occurs in nature. If a single dose/session is sufficient, there may be little profit.

[Baruch]

Some people are more suggestible, even without a drug.  Some people have better imaginations.