I’m actually feeling pretty good this time around. This is working for me a lot better than it was last time. Last time, I went through a bit of emotional turmoil around this time, but this time it’s been pretty smooth sailing. This tells me that the drugs have little effect on my emotional state, whether through use or withdrawal. I’m feel quite calm and tranquil, steady. I’m also feeling quite alert and not nearly as tired all the time. This weekend that just passed by was the first in a long time when I didn’t need an afternoon nap at all. The weekend before I definitely did, but not this weekend. The weekend before, I had a one hour jog in the morning and another in the evening on both days. I think my legs just weren’t used to it. I bike to work in the summer and it’s an hour there and an hour back, but running is something else. It’s harder and uses different muscle groups. So I’m pretty sure the running wore me out last weekend. Since then I had another jog on Wednesday, and did the same routine this weekend (I even biked to work and back on Sunday). I think I got my body used to it because I didn’t need a nap at all this weekend. Last round I noticed my need for a nap was reduced–I wasn’t as tired and I could sleep for shorter–but the need was still there to some degree. This is the first time in forever that I could go a whole day without needing any sleep in the afternoon, which is great.
I feel like I’m getting a lot more done too, a lot more task focused, sometimes staying up late to get things done. My thinking is clear and my mood is up, almost like on a half to a full cup of coffee–nothing ecstatic but definitely above neutral.
I’m staying away from the decaf this time. I still drink tea once in a while but never a whole cup. Three to four sips max. I don’t think it’s the fact that I even crave the tea. It’s that when I get to work in the morning, I like to make my way to the kitchen which gives me a chance to say good morning to everyone. The tea is an excuse.
If it wasn’t for the fact that I dearly miss the drugs and alcohol, I’d say this was worth it, but everyday I so craze a good caffeine buzz. That’s the only thing holding me back.
So another month to go. I’ll report back when I’m there.
Gib, you miss the buzz the way you would miss wearing clothes, remember that. Go somewhere that is painful to walk without shoes and walk there. Think about the comparisons in your mind while you do it. Nope don’t go nude just walk for a good while without shoes. Let your mind absorb it all.
Yepper, it works if you let it. My aunt showed me this way when at 16 I was an alcoholic with ulcers. I still enjoy my beer but, I control it not it controling me. To find the place you want to be at you have to show yourself where, why and what actual needs are. Addictions are damn close to that part of our mind that lets us know what needs are as opposed to wants. We want very strongly that addiction fulfilled, we need shoes… show your mind the difference let it regain that control.
Well, that’s it. Time’s up. It’s been two months and a day. So I’m going to start my morning off with a coffee.
What are the lessons we’ve learned this time? I definitely think my heightened emotionality needs no help from the drugs in order to thrive. I can be calm and focused for long stretches but then moody and angry when something distressing hits. Same with the sleep/wakefulness rhythms–for the most part, I usually feel well rested, but circumstances can hit that make me feel tired–ex. physically demanding work throughout the day, bad sleep the night before. But this only makes sense. When I stop enforcing a certain pattern of emotionality or sleep/wakefulness by feeding my body drugs, my body eventually takes back control, but that doesn’t mean the patterns will be even tempered or predictable. My body will feel tired when it needs to feel tired, and awake when it needs to be awake. I will be happy and I need to be happy, and miserable when I need to be miserable. See, by adding caffeine to my body, I’m telling it “you’re gonna stay awake whether you need to or not,” and the body can do nothing about it. But when I give my body back control, it can do things like keep me up 'til 2 o’clock in the morning dwelling over an issue that’s causing me stress–the issue is real, not a drug-induced mind trip, and my body needs to stay up late in order to sort it out–and then the next day, I grow tired long before my usual bed time because of a serious lack of sleep the previous night–and my body knows that so it gets tired earlier.
That seems to be the overall lesson I’m learning from these exercises.
Last time I posted in this thread, I mentioned the full weekend I went through when I didn’t need an afternoon nap. Well, that was a one time deal it seems–since then, I have needed a bit of a nap in the afternoon, but still not nearly as much as when I’m on my usual pattern of drugs and alcohol. Like I said, my body knows, and it probably felt it could afford a few less hours of sleep on that weekend for whatever reason.
I also find myself being more task focused–wanting to get things done–and this even when I’m tired and want to go to bed–that is, I’ll often stay up half and hour to an hour passed when I usually go to bed in order to get something done. In a weird way, this doesn’t even feel forced–it feels “automatic” for lack of a better word–like if you’re going for a run, and you time yourself: somehow your body just locks you in and you run until your time is out regardless of whether you want to quit early or not. So yeah, more productive despite sometimes having less energy than it would take to make it fun.
Still, what I said last time about my energy levels and mood remains true. On the whole, I feel my mood is usually above neutral–not wildly ecstatic, but up–and my need for sleep is diminished. The only thing I don’t think I’d be able to stand (if I stopped everything cold turkey) is missing the drugs–knowing that I’ll never have those experiences again. The only reason I’m able to go through with these 2 month stretches is because I know they aren’t permanent. On the other hand, knowing that I feel overall somewhat better off the drugs can be used as a reason to quit, and it might be strong enough to drown out the voices that remind me of what I sacrificed. You see, the problem is that human beings, when they seek out pleasures and gratifications, they don’t think like a utilitarian–they don’t think what would be the cumulative effects of pleasure and pain, happiness and misery, after all is said and done, after all the pleasures cancel out with all the pains?–What would be the net overall quantity of feeling and life quality in the final analysis?–humans aren’t wired to think like that, or at least to think like that as a means of determining their desires and urges. We are way more often wired to seek out the most immediate and intense forms of gratification we can get and we put off any consequences that may follow in the long run. I know that if I jack myself up on caffeine on Fridays, and then get drunk and stoned later on that night, I’ll have an intensely pleasurable, fun, and spiritually uplifting experience, but that will be followed by a hangover the next day plus a week’s worth of dragging my ass around trying to muster the energy to get through the day. If I did the utilitarian calculus, I’d have to conclude that the drugs may not be worth it. But this doesn’t speak to my cravings. All week, I look forward to those Fridays like they’re they only things that matter.
So I can only hope that the utilitarian in me can have his reasoning and conclusions heard by the rest of my mind–doesn’t mean he’s going to get his way–but I think one of the challenges I have to overcome in these trials is not to be deceived by the illusion that a single night of fun throughout the week doesn’t out weighs the crash and the aftermath that I must drudge through on all the other days of the week.
Well, I didn’t announce it this time, but I just went through another stint of drugs and alcohol–except that this time, the stint didn’t include the alcohol… or the drugs–I mean, it included only the caffeine (and the alcohol too if you look at the results… but more on that below)–that is to say, for the past 2 months, I have abstained (successfully, once again) from caffeine–but caffeine only this time (remember, I’m trying this in all permutations and combinations… actually, permutations wouldn’t make sense in this case if you think about it).
So without the caffeine, but with the alcohol and drugs, what’s the results?
They are: I definitely think the abstinence from caffeine really came through this time. I definitely felt a surge of energy–every day, through the day–that helped me keep alert, keep sharp, and especially this: be social and talkative ← I especially like this last part, and for the first time in my life, I’m considering the benefits of quitting at least the caffeine. I want to be like that every day.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t miss my intoxicated Friday nights–I think those are moments which I will always miss should I choose to quit caffeine… but the point this time around is that I finally experienced something which comes close to balancing those pleasurable nights out.
Is it that I mixed this iteration with alcohol and other drugs? The cannabinoids, maybe. But the alcohol, no. This is the reason why I said above that this stint included the abstinence of alcohol even though I didn’t commit myself to this. Like I’ve been saying all along, my alcoholism is conditional–dependent on the caffeine–and since I abstained from the caffeine, my moments of alcohol consumption were far and few between–maybe only 2 nights throughout the last two months did I drink around six drinks–a couple more nights did I drink between 2 or 3 (outings with friends)–but for the most part, I really didn’t feel the urge to drink. This turned out to be quite ironic because I wanted this round to be an experiment with the specific combination of drugs and alcohol (sans the caffeine, of course), but without the caffeine, I really couldn’t be bothered to drink all that much… so in effect, it turned out to be a stint of both the caffeine and (almost) alcohol.
But those were the results: without the caffeine (and with the cannabinoids), I definitely have more energy–physically, socially, and mentally–and as an added bonus, my urge to drink goes way down.
But what of the cannabinoids? What effect did those have which they didn’t on previous rounds? Well, is it possible that with the cannabinoids, I end up experiencing these heightened impulses to socialize more and be more active mentally? Maybe. But I don’t think so. The cannabinoids have always felt to me like a whole island unto themselves–that is, not really impacting my level of energy or sociability (although emotionally, I have to admit they do have an impact, but this impact is short lived–the longest being two or three days). But I find that even after a week of abstaining from the cannibinoids–which happened a couple of times during this stint–it didn’t seem to impact my energy levels or my tendencies to extroversion.
It’s hard to say.
So why this time did I experience a surge of energy and sociability, whereas in previous experiments on this front, I didn’t (at least, not to the same degree)… and I can’t really say.
I can only chalk it up to life circumstances. Like I discovered in previous rounds, much of what life throws at me–like it does at everyone–hurls me through highs and lows, happiness and depression–and I think it’s a good bet that the situations I’ve been in during the past two months have been conducive to the positive results which I experienced. I won’t go into the details of these circumstances, but I will say, as I’ve said before, that life itself is a major contributor, if not the major contributor–eclipsing all drugs and alcohol and whatever else I put into my body–to how I feel, think, and behave throughout all trials and episodes it flings me through.
But I definitely think the caffeine comes in at a close second, and if by abstaining from it I can make me as sharp and social and energetic as I’ve been during the past two months, I definitely think quitting it for good is well worth considering.
Why you tend to go for it again and again, even after successfully getting rid of those? What are you getting from it? Some sensations! That is all! Does that deserve that much risk?
I am regular smoker since the age of 18. I consume 10-15 cigarettes per day. This is the only bad habit i have. It is not the case that i have not tried to get rid of that. I tried it manytimes, the number decreases too but one day all goes in vain and it comes back to usual. If were able to lose it even for a whole month, i would have never touched it again.
Gib, do not play with fire. Do not assume that as you have been stop using those many times according to your will, so you will be able to do that always. You never know when these habits make you a permanent slave of themselves. Beware!
I think in order to answer those questions, you have to read the whole of this thread.
The whole reason I make a commitment to myself to abstain from drugs and alcohol for 2 month periods is because it’s temporary–I always know it’s not forever and I will get to return to the buzz/high eventually. Committing to total abstinence forever is a much bigger bight for me to chew right now… but I am working my way towards making a decision on the matter.
Well, if I’m ever going to be free of the addiction at all, it will be through this method.
Been trying to get the quote marks in the right places, but failed. Check some of the big quotes with both of us in them in beige. I have new, and important, responses in there.
In general: I see you as having a philosophy and this philosophy includes support for drug use, based on your sense of reality. If you put me in the authority position, then you can keep drawing lines in the sand and saying prove what you are saying. But this is AS IF you do not have your own philosophy which you LIVE. IOW you have invested everything in it, just as we all do. So for me two authorities are meeting. I remain utterly unconvinced of your philosophy as it relates to this iissue, which includes ideas about reality having nothing to do with drug use. Right now you react as if UNLESS SOMEONE CAN PROVE ME WRONG OCCASIONAL DRUG USE IS A RATIONAL DEFAULT. IOW not using drugs, for you bears the burden of proof, for some reason. And to be clear, not using drugs as part of your ontology and sense of causation and spirituality and so on, and your activities in general caused by this.
I think the question for you comes down to not, who will prove me wrong, but rather why do I believe what I do.
This is also true for me and my choices and philosophy.
YOu want to paint me as mainstream, but I think the reasons why you justify drug use are mainstream. IN relation to emotions, in relation to what is possible, and frankly in relation to how they create their default position actions and philosophies. As you have pointed out many times, independent thinking does not mean one always decides that the mainstream is wrong. Not that my views even on drugs are mainstream, though I do share a sense that they are a negative.
We are both being authorities. Since you think for example that one cannot or it is nearly impossible to contact God or meet God without drugs, you are saying to anyones who would value this that they are most likely making an error not taking drugs. And, of course, you are the authority over yourself. If I show up at your door with your family and cart you off to rehab, OK, I have taken on THE authority role. Otherwise we are two guys talking and you are not rebelling against anything, though at times writing as if you are rebelling against the mainstream and SHOULD stay on the default position of taking drugs because the mainstream is wrong.
I’ll take that as agreement.
Then it is a problem to that degree, and the ability to resist to that degree. That’s what’s happening. But in context with all the habits, and all the ways of shutting off emotions and taking short cuts, running in a bar and accusing people of denying their feelings or avoiding something is ludicrous. Toss in the state of society as part of the context that increases the urge and it gets more ludicrous. But I do think that is what is happening.
Nah, I dislike the cutting off of emotions. Drug use, as said, is one way amongst many. If I was to start somewhere to magically eliminate a mechanism for denial of emotions today, I would snap my fingers and cut off media first, by a long shot. All phones, surfing, TV, movies, newspapers, ipods. All the fucking noise distraction. And that would cut me off to. Though I am sure I would deal much better than the vast majority when their cold turkey kicked in after half an hour.
Whose surprised? Not me. But again, I do not think the drug user or other habit user is actually increasing their happiness. I think one part of them gets to rev up in a manic way at the expense of the whole organism – at best – bit this is not even a short time gain in happiness as a whole. And then the aftermath and longer term effects make it even less functional. But I am not surprised people treat themselves in this push-button way, or that they think that happiness is something that can be turned up like turning up the volume. The game show contestant is not quite doing the same thing. They can be trying to make a more lifechanging moment. You win a thousand bucks, sure, it’s nice. You get a house or whatever the big prizes are, and you may change your life. That may be worth the risk – depending on the statistics involved. You may be able to make a real change or a nice addition.
Though actually a lot of the time we don’t. We do it with the nail in the foot, but that’s because it is obvious. But other medical situations we simply take pain killers and change nothing else and this is true with drug use in general, legal or otherwise. Think of the use of anxiety and depression medicines.
That’s what I meant about the judgments about reality. If, Gib, that is the judgment of the user, then that user should be clear that that is his or her judgment and that he or she wants to live by that judgment. There is no hope, this is the only way to have this experience. And so on. Also, this is not making happiness more happy. It is in fact what I think is really going on. Shutting off parts of experience.
Why would anyone think in such an abstract way rather than immersing themselves in the life that is making themselves happy? AGain, to think of oneself as a machine where you push the button to turn up the volume is a fundamentally disconnected idea. And I can truthfully say I have never thought about happiness that way. I think it is odd. If I love being with person X, I will desire more of being with person X. If I love doing X, I will try to do X more often, or to get better at doing X. Life. Involved in the moreno + activity or person. I can only try to get you to get under the assumption that Hey I am happy, let me make myself happier is not strange and disconnected.
It is like nowhere man turns a dial on himself. The exact same dial on every other human. With the same mathematical result. It is like a cipher disengaged from life, programming himself or herself,like the brightness levels on the computer screena re programmed.
[/quote]
Yeah, but not all drug experiences are false realities.
[/quote]
I don’t think any of them are false. However what I meant was that to think of simply turning up the happiness means one does not care if it is connected. I want the feeling of having written a best seller, but I do not care about writing the best seller. I want the feeling of being permenently in love, as you said, (though this will be a temporary feeling from the drug) without the actual experience. I want the result of an experience I am sure I cannot have and that is the only experience that could give it to me and I somehow know this, so I will take the drug and it does not matter if reality matches what my real goals would be, now, but since I am sure may real goals cannot be realized, I will take the drug. That, I think, is your argument.
Here I was using an extreme example to show what I think is happening on an assumed level. Yes, today, drug user X’s life is probably not as bad as what it would be to see the spouse getting raped. But the disconnect is the same.
Then you should not need drugs. Cause that is putting something outside you in you. Your have argued that the only way to have experiences, the ones you want, are through using this thing. You are telling me you have to have this part of external reality to control experiences in the way you want. And, again, I am not saying the experiences are false. But taking a drug that makes you feel – again, what you suggested as what you really wanted to feel – what it is like to be in love permanentlly, IS not experiencing that. It is you self-relating, and only a part of you. Because the only way to experience the things you experience in drug experience is to shut down parts of yourself. Why would a true idealist need drugs`? Bu teven stronger, why would an idealist say he would be amazed that someone could meet God without drugs. I mean, I can’t say there must be a contradiction here, but I think, for example, that it is very strange for an idealist to think almost only people who take drugs could meet God. That just seems very strange to me. It sounds like a realist position. Now I can translate that into an idealist assertion, but it seems very odd to me. Like an idealist would be the last person to assert something like that.
I said it was abstracting. Not that it was incorrect. It is a I am not in the game analysis. I do not aim for happiness. I aim for what I desire and what expresses me. I certainly hope that leads to happiness, but that is not exactly or only why I do it. I want to be in the world as me. I do not even havet hat particularly as a goal. But I can see, when I abstract, that that is what I am doing. I want to write this book I have inside me or rather that I can feel a bit of and that unfolds when I express myself on paper. (and sure, being human, I may sometimes focus on the I want to be a best selling author, but let me tell you, one, that does not get a book written and two it is an addiction. It is not me diving into the world or myself. It is a kind of drug that inhibits that.) So I am not arguing that one cannot measure happiness. I am saying that it is a disconnected way of getting at life and of thinking of life. A form of alienation.
[/quote]
No, again, think of it in terms of the money analogy. If you suddenly won a million dollars, and suddenly someone shows up at your door step offering another million, why wouldn’t you take it? I’d agree with you if the scenario were: you won a million dollars, and then you go seeking another million.
Well, you can’t. I know that. So yeah, fuck it, I’m not going to quit the drugs because Moreno thinks I’m holding myself hostage.
[/quote]
That was talking to God or the universe. I think there is a lot of anger and hopelessness in there. That’s me going personal, but again, I am not assuming you should stop taking drugs because of what I say. I disagree with what you say. That is what I am doing. You are framing the discussion as ’Moreno is failing to prove to me that I should stop taking drugs’. I am sure that you are not convinced. But I look at it as ’Gib has failed to demonstrate that he is correct about what drugs are necessary for.’ And you live after your philosophy. Have you proven your conclusions about drugs to yourself? It’s not Moreno as surgeon, it is Gib as surgeon, using powerful tools on his own brain because of his conclusions. I can never get in there and control you the way you are controlled by your conclusions. For you the issue should be, it seems to me, do you trust those conclusions to the degree you seem to think I expect you to trust me? My issue is similar, since I base my actions on my beliefs.
Let me put this another way. It seems to me you are reacting to me in a way that says you have doubts about your own conclusions. Because you keep raising this issue of should I (simply) just take on Moreno’s beliefs. Is that what he expects me to do? And, again, hardly. Not my focus. But if I take a step back and thing about possible results, the only one I can really imagine where you stopped doing drugs as a result would be that our discussion leads you to new experiences, perhaps caused by more focus on aftereffects, and more crosschecking your experiences with what you are saying is the case. Also there might be some skepticism, on your part, about, for example, what you are assuming about other people and their experiences and then perhaps your own possible ones.
IOW not: wow that was a powerful argument by Moreno, I will stop doing drugs. But rather: hm, maybe I am assuming stuff, let me investigate. Time passes. New experiences (possibly). If so, then due to new experiences and attendant insights, Gib drops taking drugs.
That seems like a possible outcome. ’The other where I debate you into a corner and you quit, does not seem possible. It would be like me trying to convince your the rash on your foot to go away. Maybe if I hypnotized you I could make the rash disappear, but for me that is adding another layer. Another split. I have just implanted a cop inside the mind of someone who still, at root, believes the same stuff.
Butt hen AGAIN. This all goes back to me having said something about an alcoholic. And we ended up disagreeing. And I am actually just disagreeing with what I see as your general conclusions. I am rejecting your authority on the subject just as you are rejecting mine.
IN any case, it seems to me there is anger there at God. That is any habitual suppresser talking to God or the universe, even atheists. That we all taket hese short cuts with hopelessness in them and suppress our emotions, in part to avoid really fucking feeling and expressing just how pissed off we are at God. And sad and scared. Just to remind you that this is not just about drug users and I am included in this. I find the rage at God down there. Can you find yours? You strike me as someone who could admit this. Have you ever gone into that rage at God? I know I can’t give you what you want and I don’t think you have much rage at me, though I could probably get it projected at me if we were together and I really pushed my position at you.
The rage might be something like: the only way I can get what I really want is to experience via drugs for short periods of time. You have given me hopes and desires that can never be fulfilled really. This universe is a trap for me or you made me wrong not like those few people who actually like praying all the time or sitting in the lotus position. I hate me sometimes and I hate you, God, sometimes for the way things and or I am/are.
I don’t think that’s all that is there. But when I read your responses to me, I think on some level the way it slides to me as authority trying to take away your drugs, this is setting off your rage at God.
But then I have.
I doubt you think those are equivalent.
Not saying that. The approach of suppressing emotions and viewing the self abstractly has zero chance. Some Buddhist and Hindus will say it will work, even if it takes many lifetimes, that this is guaranteed. I actually do not like those paths. I personally think there has been a fundamental problem in creation from the beginning. I do not have certainty. But I want to leave the door open. Once impossiblity is presumed, once it is decided that as a rule I must suppress parts of myself and not go for full integration and instead view myself abstractly and just maintain the splits, I do not think there is any chance of healing as an organism. I want to know what it is like when all parts are together, not one part gets a high at the expense of others. The use of force on myself. I think drugs are a use of force that the ego, say, is using against other parts. Those feelings are not the right one, I choose to havet hese and this drug will make them happen. This is done in many other ways, again, just to keep repeating it, though drugs can be a useful metaphor for those other habits of splitting and controlling the self since the mechanics are more visible – you take a pill – and can be tracked more easily by science.
You live as if your conclusions are the best guarantee of whatever temporary experiences you can have that you want to have. You see organized approaches, like say Hinduism, as philosopical systems that cannot guarantee what you want. You write here as if you do not realize that you have a philosopical system – which may or may not be scattered and not fully verbalized – that you live by. IOW that you invest you life in. The issue for you, it seems to me, is whether your system is valid and sound. If you want perfect guarantess from any other approach, you are assuming that your should be the default. I think that is a big assumption.
If you shift any debate to ’you have not proven 100% your position’, then you are giving your philosophy as pass as the one one should take unless proven otherwise. I doubt it holds up as well as Buddhism, at least on paper.
Now I am pretty sure you do challenge your own system. But I am reacting to the dynamic in this discussion. And I am guessing that this might parallell the dynamic when your system gets challenged in general. If you like how things are going and trust your system and think it meets the standards other systems are expected to meet, well fine. But if not, it doesn’t matter if Moreno or the Buddha or what’s our resident Hindus name are not experts, you are currently following a system that does not meet your own criteria.
So?!?!
Who said I was even trying.
[/quote]
I am responding to you here. You said something about drugs getting you to God and seemed to think this was the main way and here seem to say that it would be strange if people could come in contact without drugs. I considered this contact with God as a spiritual issue – the only possible assumption I think I introduced and a fair one. If you are only reaching these experiences on drugs, then you have to weaken your body to havet hem. If you are a sporadic drug user, then you can only havet hem sporadically. I would think in some way there might be more doubt also. Because drug taking jumps from one state of consciousness to another, the experiences there seem less connected to everyday life. I am not saying they are not real. I am just speaking from my own phenomenological experience. There is a post-high distance I do not experience from without drug spiritual experiences. Those seem like problematic things connected to using drugs to get there. And using them will reinforce the sense that this is the only way.
For me the analogy is more like. Anyone who thinks they NEED to drive their car four blocks to the 7/11 is hallucinating. Unless, of course, they are handicapped. And yet this is a norm these days.
And in this particular instance, you are not the average guy. I don’t want to focus on you too much, but I figure I can throw in a compliment. And fuck it, if I got really freaked out cause your new girlfriend was using the car cause you need to go down and get some chips, I would call your ass out on it.
I read what you say about how strange it would be if someone managed to meet God without drugs and it seems to me a complete parallel to the car addiction.
Sure. You have some ideas left. I am focusing on the relationship.
[/quote]
I don’t know if anybody really does know how to get there on the nat. You really have to have tried the psychedelics to know what you’re talking about here.
[/quote]
Like I said, I haven’t done opiates. I have done most everything else.
Oh, it sure as shit can. I have had more powerful experiences without. Deeper. And involving all of me. Less passive, walking the circus, more active on my part, more repeatable and more grounded in what I am ready for – emotionally – and more able to integrate into where I am at. Rather than getting transported into some other realm and then transported back (a la Star Trek), learning how to walk there and walk back. Instead of discrete separate realms a growing connection. Instead of hangovers, generally feeling more alive the next day. Sometimes that life has some hard emotions to face in it. I am not necessarily peppy the next day, though generally I am. But I feel a more rich sense of my organism the next day.
I hate the lotus position paths, frankly. But sure, no reason to believe me. But it seems to me you believe yourself that your path – however unformulated – is the best that can be hoped for. REmember you have a position and express a great deal of certainty. Sure you had a disclaimer, in relation to other people, but the certainty remains about yourself, and tremendous doubt, for some reason about these other people.
You can look at this as Moreno is proving or failing to prove to Gib that X will work. I experience this thread as, Moreno disagreeing with Gib’s ideas about reality. I am utterly unconvinced and I am presenting my reasons for it.
I think the way you are couching the dialogue is unfair. Why are your statements about reality not Gib trying to convince Moreno?
No, Gib, that’s slippery. Speak for yourself. Do you really think that ideas in your mind are going to bring you fulfillment? If you do, then you saying speak for yourself makes sense. But if you don’t you slide past taking a stand. If you think that ideas will bring you fulfillment, that having a certain set of ideas in your mind will give you what you want, then tell me and I will take back my including you in my sense there. I will take it back, but for me to feel like it makes sense, I need to hear you say it, because I find it hard to believe you think that. Especially after you have already said, in this post, that you are no longer learning new things from drugs. That would mean you have learned all there is to learn, have the ideas already.
Not sure what you mean here. No, you’d still be someone who had changed over time.
Then, Gib, taking the drug CANNOT give you what they give you.
Of course not. But it was the juxtaposition of the drug experience, like I take this since those things are not here or possible. Perhaps we misscommunicated there.
No, Gib, I do not. Not sure what I can tell you here. Hope you’ll take my word for it. You have ended up defending a specific habit and I am focused on that habit you have and refuse to believe it is necessary or not what I am saying it is. I see suppression of emotions and the kinds of negative self-control as endemic and include myself in that.
[/quote]
I’ll admit that I’m somewhat of a risk taker (I won’t even get into my bike riding habits),
[/quote]
interesting, I have had that at times. Bike risks. NOthing spectacular, though I shudder at this one thing I did taking a down his, no hands, out onto a semi-major rural road. I did not brake. I would wait for the last second view and if a car was coming I would have to lower down fast and probably do a side skid. I think, I had to do this once. All the other times, I would get to the last second point, see no car, and just glide out, no hands onto the road – the side road with the hill was at an angle to the major road, trees blocking the view till the last seconds. It was such a great feeling. To do all this, especially the riding down the hill with hands out at the sides, feeling the wind. I don’t know how fast this was. Certainly hospital speeds and death speeds if I hit my head. Now when I remember into that the shudder is soem of the fear I didn’t want to feel then.
I doubt it. And neither of us is an expert. And you are, again, literally letting little surgeon chemicals into your brain. You may have some expertise about what you may experience, what the days after will be like. But your expertise on what subtle side effects are taking place and what assumptions are driving you to return to the use may not be very high at all.
It sounds like you have done more drug taking than I ever did. Just to toot my own horn however, I am very sensitive to drugs. I mean, like say chocolate, let alone……I also found that my self of what a drug was doing fit with my reading later on the physiology. Fit with what I saw in people who used long term. Fit with what long terms users wrote. I think I learned fast and with little exposure and really noticed side effects. Who knows. I might be wrong. But my point is, there is no simple way to calculate expertise. And more use clearly does not always lead to greater insight into what the drugs are doing, even on the positive side, but certainly on the negative side.
I dunno, it seems to me I couldn’t be excellent if I was talking out of my ass.
Just for some perspective, Moreno is responding to this thread which he branched to this one in order to keep it on topic.
Meh, more like an open mindedness philosophy. But yes, it’s definitely not the “just say no” philosophy that most others hold.
Not sure what you mean by “RATIONAL DEFAULT”, but what you’re describing is the way pretty much anyone thinks. If someone holds a position X, it is going to require some pretty heavy prooving in order to convince them they are wrong. That being said, this very thread, which you have moved the discussion to, is a testament to my painful awareness that the drugs ain’t good for me and I might be better off without them (but that’s what this self-experimentation is to determine). As you said in the other thread, however, this remains a philosophical discussion if nothing else, and on philosophical grounds, I will continue to challenge your points.
Most of the time, the mainstream is anti-drug… but of course there is alcohol use, smoking, caffeine, pain killers, prescription drugs, etc. ← Some of these aren’t exactly celebrated by the mainstream–most people look down upon smoking and drinking for example even when they do it themselves–but they are tolerated.
Not at all. If they can have experiences of making contact with God without the drugs, then all the power to them. I’m just saying I think it’s way more likely to happen on drugs than off. And this has nothing to do with “should”.
Well, I should hope I can challenge the mainstream if I don’t see any basis for it other than following the heard, but that’s all I see it as: a challenge. If I seem obstinately stuck on my position, it’s because I’m not quite satisfied that one has surmounted the challenge.
You see, you’re taking it as a forgone conclusion that it’s a problem. There’s a difference between indulging every Friday and falling off the horse. One is an allowance to one’s self, the other is an inability to stick to a resolve. The latter is a problem, the former needn’t be (and this is outside the context of my personal problems with drugs… just being a philosopher and all).
Yeah, some people do that. But I hope you see, now that you’ve brought this in the context of this thread, that at least I’m trying, in my slow paced way, to work my way out of it. Some people ask: if you want it so bad, why not just quit? Well, this is a question for any drug addict who entertains the thought that life might be better off the drugs; they don’t really understand what I’m trying to do in this thread. Going at this slow and steady pace is what will make it work (if it works at all).
Yes, sometimes this is the case. But I’m being the philosopher: I also consider other cases, like the occasional drug user who is happy with life and chooses to indulge once in a while just for a bit of extra happiness (bliss, pleasure, whatever).
I’m not sure what you have against abtraction. We all think about ourselves in abstract terms sometimes.
What has this to do with abstraction? Are you saying that when we abstract ourselves in our minds, we run the risk of getting it wrong?
Yes, if there are things we love, we will engage in them. But why does that mean we won’t think of them abstractly?
I read ahead and saw below that you did acknowledge why I brought up these examples: writing a best seller, falling in love, etc. So I’ll withhold commenting on this.
I get what you’re saying, but think there’s more to the drug habbit than the justifications one gives one’s self. One may say things like “I want the experience of being loved even though I know it’s not real,” but making the decision to use is not a logic conclusion drawn from this justification. It’s an urge, a desire, conditioned into the brain by the ordinary mechanisms of reward and reinforcement. Animals will become addicted just as easily as humans, animals who don’t have the capacity to justify on the same abstract levels. And we confabulate too. When you ask why a person does drugs, he may give you the answer I sited just now (wanted to feel loved), or he may give you completely different answer off the top of his head. We make things up thinking those are our real reasons. But really, at the end of the day, it’s just ordinary conditioning–reward and reinforcement–wiring into our brains so strongly it becomes almost impossible to resist. Whether that’s real or fake, connected or disconnected, doesn’t matter. We want to feel good.
While I, again, withhold commenting on your misunderstanding of my reasons for doing drugs (because you later acknowledge them), I will comment on your misunderstanding of idealism–I am not a solipsistic idealist. I do believe in an external reality. To be an idealist need not mean reality is determined by my experience, but can mean by experience in general. Berkeley, the father of modern idealism, never thought he was the only thing in existence, but that there is always a higher consciousness (God) determining the reality of everything through His perception.
Because being an idealist does not mean you think you are omnipotent. The ordinary things we can control and the things we can’t don’t change much in my idealist philosophy.
My idea of God is not like others–particularly, not like the “God” one meets while high. I was talking about a personal, individuated God (you know, the sky daddy). My God just is the universe. We’re always in direct contact with him all the time. But when someone on drugs says that they met God, they usually don’t mean they saw the universe.
My idealism is relatively simple: it just states that reality is defined by our experiences, but as for what we experience, I don’t claim that we can experience anything different from what realists would claim (and note that realists don’t always have a problem admitting that we can experience things that aren’t real–dreaming, for example).
Well, sure, if abstracting like this was all that one ever did, then yes, nothing in one’s actual life would get done. But I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I never said that I or anyone lived in a world of abstraction. This whole line of argument started when you pointed out that my analysis of pleasure seeking was an exercise in abstraction. It is, but so what?
In most cases, yes, but remember this line of argument started when I gave the example of people celebrating good fortune by going out drinking. The point was to show that not all drug use is a case of trying to fill a void or drawn sorrows (or take the easy route, etc.). In this case, I don’t think those who attend the celebration are seeking to get drunk–not per se–but are following along with the crowd. It’s Christmas time, the boss announces the date of the Christmas party, you arrange plans so as to attend. You do this regardless of whether you’re an alcoholic or not (but especially if you’re an alcoholic), and you certainly don’t need to be miserable or have problems in your life in order to attend. And it doesn’t mean you won’t enjoy the alcohol, and it doesn’t mean you won’t look forward to getting drunk.
The point is, the office staff were never seeking alcohol, but most of them do like to drink nonetheless; they understand the health risks, the displeasure of the hangover, the social tabboos of drinking, etc., so on most occasions, they make the decision to forget about drinking and focus on something else, which usually isn’t that hard, but they always keep their ears perked up for those special occasions, those office Christmas parties, because it’s those occasions when they allow themselves the excuse to indulge just this one time. They needn’t have any major problems in their lives, they needn’t have any holes to be filled, but they do like to get tipsy every now and then, and they will do so when the special occasions arise.
I don’t think this is a good analogy for what the drugs are doing for me–maybe for others, but not for me–I don’t typically think that by doing the drugs I’m giving myself the experience of what would otherwise be the “real thing”. I just have an experience–part buzz, part other things–and usually what I get out of it, other than the temporary buzz, is a taste of what my mind can do–I had certain hallucinations, certain delusions, certain undescribable experiences, but it is especially because these things aren’t real from my sober point of view that I know they were mental. ← That’s the interesting part for me, what my mind can do. Yes, it requires the drugs at this point, but it does make me wonder if the mind is capable of having these experiences without the drugs (note: that wouldn’t make the experiences any more real).
Just for the record, I never said one can’t have the experience of meeting God without drugs.
Again, don’t think of this as my justifications for doing drugs. This is 1) just a philosophical discussion, and 2) confabulation. The real reason I do drugs is, like I said above, conditioning. I’m very well aware of the harmful effects of drugs (and then, we have to ask which drugs–some are more harmful than others) which is why I started this thread. So don’t think of this as me justifying drug use and based on that concluding that I should continue on with using them. At best, it is me trying to figure out which drugs to use, and how often, and at what dosages, and trying to figure out if what they say is really true: is life really better off the drugs? These occasional two moth stints are the experiment, and so far they have proven to be slightly better than while on the drugs (the best one being that in which I abstained from the caffeine but continued to drink and smoke pot). I’m finding that life itself provides most of the ups and downs of the roller-coaster ride, and the drugs only add a bit of mild turbulance.
Yes, because there’s a difference between exploring the logic of ideas in a philosophical vein (which I said is what I’m doing) and relaying to someone your own personal life experiences. For example, I argued above that it’s possible for some to do drugs on occasion and still be perfectly happy with themselves and their lives, which seems like a philosophically sound thing to say, but I can’t say that I’m perfectly happy with my life, and I know I’m more than just the occasional user. So do I have doubts about the philosophy I just expounded when juxtaposed with my own life? Of course. But the things I’m arguing in this discussion don’t always have to surround me and my personal life. The question of whether drugs are good or bad, why people take them, how it affects the quality of their lives, can’t be answer just by looking at my own life.
It’s that whole Jahova’s Witness thing. You’re telling me that experiences of meeting God are more common place in your life than in that of a drug user, and should be less surprising that if it happened under the influence of drugs. What am I supposed to say to that? You are literally coming across to me as like the Jahova’s Witness saying that if I give up all my wealth to charity, God will provide me with food, shelter, and everything I need to survive. I should hope a sound minded person would at least be skeptical.
Why are you so sure that’s not what’s going on? Remember: philosophical discussion vs. real life.
Uh… which God? Remember, I make a distinction between the sky daddy God of most Western religions and my God as an idealist. The sky daddy God, I don’t believe in (although I remember when I was a kid being very angry at that God). And the idealist God who is the universe itself seems too strange a target for anger. It would be like getting angry at a tree or a mountain. There’s just something too non-anthropomorphic about the universe, even if one does view it as a conscious experiencer, for anger towards it to make sense.
Yeah, there’s something like that there–the universe being a trap in particular–although most of the time it passes through my mind as “my life”–wishing it would end and I could just move on to the next one–and then I think: what if the next one’s worse, what if I just end up going to Hell? Sometimes I question whether it’s just my life or we’re all in this boat together. It gets complicated with thoughts of demons and other malicious spirits orchistrating all this and having a good laugh at me. But I wouldn’t quite describe it as “anger at God” in the way you put it–maybe “frustration at life” at best.
It’s setting off rage, but not at God. I was reacting to how arrogantly you seemed to be claiming to know what the life of the drug user is like, making moral judgements and all, like you know without having been there. At least in the last post.
Have you, now? Well, last time I asked you that question, you said: no opiates. Hopefully, negative sums it up (or something like that). That sounded to me like a cheaky way of saying: not much. But I’ll ask it again: what kinds of experiences have you had with drugs? I know we’ve all had experiences with alcohol and caffeine, but I don’t think the psychedelics are nearly as common. Have you smoked weed? How often? How long ago?
I think when it comes to alcohol and caffeine, we can see eye to eye (although I may still debate you on some points philosophically). I’m far less convinced, however, that the psychedelics are equally harmful.
I was responding to this:
Obviously, there are differences, but again, I brought that up to give you an example of how it seems to me when someone tells me of how rewarding it is when off the drugs.
It’s where I’m at right now. It’s not a “should”. Other systems are suggesting I move from where I’m at. I don’t just move because someone said move. It takes a lot more than that. I’m trying to give myself reasons to move in this thread–hands on experiences, real life experiences–not someone else’s system–I have to wait and see if those experiences pan out.
It doesn’t. In fact, Buddhism is an excellent source of inspiration for this very project. But right now it’s just on paper and that’s what I’m trying to move beyond.
Again, what I’m doing here is scrutinizing a philosophy (your’s). Don’t take this to mean it’s what I follow in real life.
I don’t know how much of an expert you are at relationship, Moreno, so I won’t say you’re talking out of your ass (that comment pertained more to your expertise on drugs). I agree that a great relationship is unlikely to come about without any struggle (but then again, I wonder…), but I also think that if it requires too much of a struggle, I might be happier single.
Little late in the game, but that’s all right.
Who said anything about confusion? I just think it would be amazing if someone actually met God. At least with the drugs you have a ready-made explanation: it was the chemicals in his brain. But if someone said they had an experience of meeting God, and they weren’t on drugs, then they’re either crazy or they really did meet God. If they’re crazy, that’s still a bit more interesting than someone who did drugs and experienced meeting God–I wouldn’t say amazing, but more interesting–and if they really did meet God, what could be more amazing than that? You don’t think?
Yes, again, to give some perspective on what the drugs would be worth to me. If I had to substitute them for something else, these would be about equal.
If you could show me another way to get there without the drugs, particularly requiring that I give up the drugs, I’d be all over that. I certainly hope you’re not arguing “find another way” for its own sake–as in, you should really stop breathing because it reinforces the assumption that that’s the only way to get oxygen. So if you have another way, I’m all ears.
I still don’t quite get it. Are you saying that you know one can meet God without the drugs, that you’ve experienced this and can show others how it’s done, or are you just saying that one ought never to give up hope that it might be possible without the drugs?
I never say anything’s impossible, personally, but I’m just not all hung up on this “dependent” thing with the drugs. Yes, I’m dependent on the drugs to have such-and-such experience–at least for now, at least this easily–but so what? I don’t really feel compelled to prove my independents by striving for those same mental states by some alternative route (even though I’m open minded to their existence).
That could lend you a bit more credibility in my mind. Tell me more about your experiences.
Ok, you’re gonna have to explain to me how that’s done. I can’t just sit here and listen to someone else tell me they’ve experienced it. It’s just going to leave me wishing that were me. I need a methodology, a little taste for myself, something that can actually serve as substance to this empty hearsay.
Why is it “for some reason”? The Jahova’s Witness thing rears its ugly head here again.
Because I want to be convince by you. Do you know how much I would give to be able to get high from five minutes of meditation alone?
Not ultimate fulfillment–as in, now my life’s complete and I don’t have to worry about anything else ever again–but certainly little mini-fulfillments along the way. Don’t you find the occasional insight pleasant and inspiring, sometimes serving as a little motto to live by, something to impart to others in a philosophical discussion, something that can help cope with the hard times of life? Don’t you find them uplifting?
I didn’t mean I get no more novel insights. I think I’ll always be able to depend on that. I meant that the qualitative feeling that the drug gives me–cannabis in this case–is always the same. It’s like caffeine: it certainly perks up your imagination and revs your thinking into overdrive. You can get a ton of new insights and ideas every time, but the feeling is always the sake: wakeful, jolty, happy, sometimes a bit nervous, etc.
And you don’t think the drugs had any influence on that?
Now you’re assuming that pleasure is the only thing drugs can give you. They obvious do give you that, and alcohol in particular doesn’t give you much more than that, but that’s only the buzz part. There are other parts that are above mere base pleasure–the psychedelics definitely have a spiritual component to them, and that may be a kind of “higher” pleasure if you will–and these are the things that made them worth it in the begining, and which I say have now worn themselves thin (not to be confused with gone away), but they’re definitely there, just like the fast paced thoughts and insights are still there for caffeine in addition to the buzz, and so there is more to the drugs than mere pleasure, although the pleasure is what reinforces the addiction.
Yeah, isn’t it a rush?
True.
You know, part of what I consider to be my expertise on these experiences is that I came to the insights which I have now published as Volume I of The Nuts and Bolts of Consciousness (I believe I gave you a copy, didn’t I?) not only while I was newly getting into drugs but taking psychology at university and studying the brain–everything I learnt about that jived completely with what I was experiencing psychedelically. ← So there’s some brain science behind that as well.
You don’t have to do drugs to be a good therapist.
Sure, it is a mainstream epistemology. If you can’t prove that I am wrong,then I am right.You hold other positions to a much higher standard than your own. Now you haven’t verbalized it, quite though almost, that way. But you function in the world as if that is the case.
Which is why I used the word default. I would argue that one should hold one’s own views to at least as high a standard as one expects someone else’s position. I have not seen you present a good case and it seemed like you conceded a lot of things, including but not limited to a toll on the body and the lack of further returns on insight. And when I wrote about ‘your philosophy’ in regard to this - which is a kind of hedonism, though there were other types of support also brought forward - I referred to it as not necessarily verbally put out. IOW I don’t think you have really organized you various justifications for drug use, but they function as a philosophy but become at least somewhat clearer in reaction to challenge.
What you, like most people - iow mainstream epistemology - are doing is holding to a position unless some other position meets standards your own position, so far, does not meet. It may be common - re: ‘the way pretty much anyone thinks’, but this does not make it a solid epistemological position. And perhaps not the best way to arrive at how to treat yourself. IOW if you frame a discussion as should I accept your authority, it evades the issue of whether you should accept your own authority and the philosophical positions underpinning it. It doesn’t matter if I and others do not convince you, if you own beliefs laid out in front of you don’t convince you, and, as I think is likely, are even less convincing than what some others say. I am suggesting that the way you frame the debate serves to maintain/bias your status quo not based on the validity of your position.
If they are not good for you, it seems deducible that you would be better off without them. Unless you see only bad options, and including them in your life is less bad. I have seen nothing to indicate how you would know this. Or how you would know what you have said: people who do not use drugs can we almost rule out their contacting God. That seems like talking out of your ass to me. If you want to make the onus mine. That I must prove to you that you can reach god without drugs, you are skipping how unsupporting this belief of yours is, regardless of my rhetorical skills and knowledge. As one example.
If you experiment on yourself, as a single person trial study, there are lots of problems getting good results. Since your subjective judgments (which must be central) are being affected by the drugs. And how you experience outside of the drug trial tests, is what I mean in particular. And then the sample of your research is limited.
NO, it is not. It is extremely radically pro-drug in a way society never has been before. Certainly some authorities disagree with some of your drug choices. But overall the control and manipulation of the emotional body via drugs is nearly universally accepted, it is marketed and run by soem of the most powerful corporations in the world beaming their ideas about life into brains everywhere as we speak. Pharma with its psychotropics, Alcohol and especially beer, tobaccoo and the various caffeine products - and while these latter may seem mild to most people, it is a motor in current forms of capitalism. I extend ‘drug use’ or the pattern of suppression of emotions even further than this to all sorts of activities - certainly gaming and wireless tech use are clear and easy examples where extreme addictions mirror those of literal drug users - that suppress and manipulate the emotions. Your positions are mainstream in being hedonistic, skeptical about getting what you want from non-technological interventions into your own brain chemistry and the implicit acceptance of control and manipulation of emotions. Just because some of the drugs you do are not the mainstream accepted ones, does not make your position less mainstream. Philosophically you are much more in the mainstream than me. But as you (I think) and I (I’m sure) and also Uccisore have pointed out an accusation of being mainstream is substanceless as far as the issue at hand. The more important issue is whether the conclusion has been reached independently or dependently and if so on what.
You are being an authority by putting forward your sense of what reality is. You are being an authority with me and anyone reading. And, re the above, a specific point say about illegal drug X may go against mainstream, your philosophical positions justifiying use of the illegal drug are mainstream and conventional. (and we are not even dealing with the fact that today we have many many subcultures and in many of these, especially for younger men, occasional use of drugs legal or otherwise is seen as fun and those who do not engage in it are less fun, not cool. It’s no longer the fifties where a single mainstream rules most of North American society. I think you are getting mileage from couching this as you as non-mainstream, me as mainstream that does nto match reality.
AS far as the should. AGain, if you that you want to do drugs, that’s it. I will not tell you you should not. If you tell me I do drugs because reality is X. (drugs to this, without drugs this is less likely, this can happen, that cannot iow ontology cause effect so on) I am going to disagree with you based on what I see as reality.
If you can only take that as He is telling me I should not do drugs, you are missing context and me. If I thought your justifications were correct, I would not be disagreeing. Your priorities might be different from me so whatever costs benefits I see are not mine to shove on you. But once you tell me I do X because X, Y Z are true, my disagreement does not mean I think you should not do X.
As far as contact with God, I suppose if that was the entire goal - a very short term contact - I would have less objections, since that would be your goal. But if some kind of relationship and ongoing connection is the goal, then I maintain my position as fully as presented earlier. Sure, you might connect with someone on ecstasy or peyote or whatever and then develop a romantic relationship that works after word. 1) I do not think the connections involve the whole person - which is why the connection is dependent on the drug, that particular whole person has trouble doing it otherwise. 2) I think one has to relearn all that intimacy 3) I think it is actually harder afterward when drugs have made the connection. And I have seen not a single long term relationship built on that way of meeting another person. And I have seen a lot of that kind of Hello. So when I consider other relationships, like say to God, I think the same problems apply. It is not a good way to form an ongoing relationship with the whole of you. Of course this may, as said, not be part of the goal. If single, once in while intense, experiences as exceptions are the goal, my objections are less strong. I realized I had assumed something there.
I want to take a break from this for a while. It’s been really good for me, but frankly this opening and the way the disagreement keeps getting framed by you is something that would need to change for me to want to go on. And I guess I sense that for me at least some unconscious mulling would be useful. Let it percolate.
Well, that’s kind of the immature way of putting it. I’d rather say: if I don’t find your arguments convincing, then I remain unmoved (or something like that). “I am right” is too strong a stance for me (the epistemic skeptic that I am).
But there’s a reason this is mainstream: it’s the way the brain works. The brain will defend its current knowledge, beliefs, and values against others trying to make their way in like anti-virus software fending off foreign threats. We usually hold to one or another position with a bit of tenacity, not so much because we have argued some good rational reason why we should do this, but because the brain quite naturally puts up defenses against external influences to change ideas and values–if it didn’t, we’d be extremely vulnerable to manipulation and confusion, like a computer to viruses.
It’s even more extreme than you’ve put it, in a sense, for not only do we hold other positions to a higher standard than our own, but we often have forgotten our own standards. Once an idea is in–whether that be from the words of a trusted authority or by one’s own inner contemplations–the brain is way more likely to throw out the reasons and justifications for the idea (how you got there) than it is the idea itself (no sense in wasting precious neural space for that which has already served its purpose), and so we often hold to certain position without even remembering why we hold them. Oh, we’ll confabulate all right, but as for the standards by which we hold to our positions, there often aren’t any. Still, however, we hold those positions with a sense of certainty because we maintain this sense that if they got there, they must have gotten there for a good reason, that they must have passed the tests and such, so we are far less inclined to reject those ideas than we are new ideas that conflict with them, whether from outside or inside.
I don’t think it would be a good idea to work against this system too rashly–it does serve a purpose I think (for example, if it weren’t for this system, you’d be an intellectual whore to anyone who wanted to have their way with your mind–cult leaders, for example). So I think I’ll stick with it for a while. Doesn’t mean I’m not open minded to other views, but I will allow my mind to put them through the usual battery of tests and filters before submitting to them wholeheartedly.
We could debate that, but there is a hint of rationalism and moralism in that statement.
I’ve gotten the impression by now that you think I’m trying to defend drug use, as if all this philosophy I’m presenting has the sole purpose of excusing the continuance of my drug use. I think I’ve said before that this isn’t the case (or at best, a severely distorted picture of the case). If I’m defending anything, it’s myself. The points I bring to the table in defense of drug use (like it’s OK to drink at the business Christmas party) come from the standard modus operandi with which I do philosophy here: I pick apart arguments and point out holes where I see them–just for their own sake. I don’t like pretending not to see them just so as to get along with the other person.
What I’ve been trying to do is to express what it’s like to be the drug user I am, and if I get defensive, it’s because I think you’re getting it wrong. I feel like I do have to defend something, but it’s not my drug use (which I’d like to be free of given that there are better alternatives), it’s this “invasion of privacy” for lack of a better word. It really does feel like a Junior surgeon who has no idea how to handle a scalpel trying to fix my mind–it feels threatening. And yes, you’re right that the drugs can be seen as mini-surgeon I’m allowing to have free reign over my brain–but it doesn’t feel like it (most likely because they’ve already done their damage, convincing at least part of my brain that they do no harm).
We’re walking a thin line between rational philosophy and what it’s like to be me–when we enter the latter realm, all rationality flies out the window. I can’t help if I want the drugs even though I know they do damage to me. And there are certain measures I’m not willing to take even though I know they may be for the best.
This all depends on what “epistemology” you’re talking about. This whole line of argument started when I doubted your claim that one can meet God just as readily, if not more, without the drugs than with. This may happen to you all the time, but don’t tell me you’re confused why the rest of us unenlightened plebs hold some doubts. ← On this particular point, I think I’ve got quite a valid position. Claiming that you’ve met God is an extraordinary one, and you know what they say about extraordinary claims. (note, I’m not following this up here with: therefore, I’m justified in continuing drugs).
Moreno, if you keep on this burden of proof thing, this discussion is going to funnel down into one of those petty “well, you need to convince me”, “no you convince me!” back and forths. I’ve been trying to say to you that doubt in the face of extraordinary claims (extraordinary because what you claim just does not fit my experience) is natural, and the brain will typically resist buying such claims wholesale, at least at first. I’m not going to fight my own brain just to make you happy. There is ample opportunity here for you to try to explain to me these godly experiences of yours (I don’t need proof per se)–anecdotal stories, something inspiring, something that might hint at a way out, anything. But don’t just sit there and whine that I won’t believe you just because you can’t prove it to me and won’t even try.
Do you have something better in mind? Myself is all I have. And don’t you think it would prove something if the results I got were actually positive? I mean, like: on this occasion or on that, the results were actually quite encouraging: maybe I can be happier off the drugs. How would that count as me trying to conjure up the results I want to see (that is, if we’re assuming I don’t want a reason to get off the drugs)? I’ve been through three two month stints so far, and the results were: mildly good, mildly good, quite good.
I think that’s just you perceiving things from your radically anti-drug stance. I’ll agree we live in a drug tolerant society (and then it depends on the drug), but we are definitely not pro-drug (I have to remember you live in the US and I live in Canada–don’t know if that makes a difference).
Oh, you’re talking about Big Pharma. Missed that.
I mention a couple of examples involving pleasure seeking and you think I’m a hedonist.
Thanks Freud.
Should we be going back to the other thread?
Moreno, I don’t care about mainstream or not mainstream. I’m not trying to be a big ass rebel: Oh, look at me, big bad drug user–I’m such a non-conformist. Like I said above, I’m trying to express what it’s like to be a drug user the best I can (and no, I don’t always get it right). You talk as if I’m unfairly pushing my views against you. At best, what I’m trying to convey is the challenges both you and I must overcome if I am to cross over into your subjective world. I’m trying to say: look, this is the problem I’m having with your view. I want to believe you, but I can’t just jump over with the limited criteria you gave me. I don’t know why you get frustrated with that, and I think it’s rather unfair of you to expect anything more.
And both are fine, and I’ve done both in this discussion. As for what I want out of the drugs, I want to keep them limited for now. Now is not the time for me to go cold turkey, but I don’t want to be a stumbling drunk each and every day either. That’s why I give myself a release every Friday. That’s the frequency I want to stay at for now.
I think you are saying that though.
Thanks Moreno. Yes, once a week is good enough for me.
Ok, sure.
And I know I bark a lot. It’s a defense mechanism that I allow to happen (if for no other reason than to watch it happen). I still consider you a good friend.
You know, Moreno, this exchange has helped me to realize why I want to take this slow and steady approach to quitting the drugs. If I’m going to make a commitment to quit the drugs for good, it has to be meaningful. And this is how I build up meaning in my life. If I take years and years to plan something, that something becomes all the more meaningful. A commitment made in a matter of 2 days will most likely last 2 days and then die, and one might forget that it was even a part of one’s life. Something that takes several years to build up, however, is not easily forgotten, and if the effect of that also lasts several years, all the more reason to look back on it as a significant phase in your life, making your life more meaningful overall. So it has to mean something to me in order to work. I’m designing my life as I go, and I want to make it meaningful. This works.
Also, I remember the time when I experimented with Salvia Divinorum. Now there’s a drug that has 0 buzz effect yet provides wildly surreal experiences. Definitely not for the faint of heart. I actually did a report on the experience here. This drug has always stood out in my mind as the one that separates the boys from the men. If you want to test your commitment to exploring the psychedelic experience without seeking the buzz, Sally is for you. The experience is actually quite unpleasant, and can be down right frightening. But it definitely counts as an altered state of consciousness. Anyway, that’s the way I wanted to be in the beginning. An explorer of other mind states but with the will to resist getting hooked. I would like to be that way again some day.
I realized that I have a heuristic. If it takes a toll on the body, the justification for it bears the onus.
If something leaves me in pain, hungover, weak, fuzzy headed, with a recovey period, cranky, dulled, etc. That is with body-based negative aftereffects, my using/doing it bears the onus. The default is not to use/do such things. Not just thinking of drugs here.
In a sense I take the body as an authority. I can go against that authority in ways that seem justified, but the justifications for doing that bear the onus.
And this would only be much more true when it had to do with drugs that are Medical level intervention strength (and even more so if they are artificial).
What I am responding to here is the idea that the default should be drug use, unless it is demonstrated with great certainty otherwise. As if we were in a vaccuum just dealing with ideas, all ideas starting out the same. Anything can be the default position and then anyone disagreeing bears the onus.
And just to be clear, when I say it is a heuristic that I treat the body as an authority, I do not mean that I never go against what that authority seems to say. I just notice that I want justification for it. It is not a neutral philosophical position for me, to use an extreme example, whether I should leave my hand on the burning stove or take it off. I do not weigh various arguments for and against equally. The default is to not burn my hand and keep on increasing my pain.
Other situations can be more complicated, of course. Sports, running, have painful aftereffects. For me, in general, even in the day after soreness and ’tireness’ the overall feeling is actually good. I have a global good feeling the next day. And if I don’t then something was wrong the day before. (there are also longer term feelings of well being that can get weighed in, though for me,on the sports example, I do not even need to add these in given the short term global good feeling ((which is added on to the fun/social aspects of the participation)))
To me there must be judgments about reality – and you have put forward quite a few – that lead to making medical level (short term) interventions in your own brain chemistry, mainly to have fun. And I see Little solid justification for these judgments. It seems to me that position bears the onus regardless of what other people say or believe or how well they argue their positions. You recently mentioned a chemical I had never even heard of. I can only assume it is something new that someone has made ina lab somewhere. IOW something with minimal general knowledge about the effects of it, short term and long term. This would seem to require even more justification, even if everyone in your society believed it was good to take the drug.
Obviously I hold this default position in relation to mainstream accepted drugs: coffee, Xanax whatever.
IOW all this takes Place - the onus stuff - Before you even get into a discussion with Moreno.
Just to be clear, that is not my justification for my drug use–it’s an explanation for what drives me–the desire to have fun–it’s more a cause/force than a justification. The closest I came to justifying drug use on the basis of fun was to say that sometimes, under certain circumstances, it’s OK to have a little fun with drugs.
You mean, 2C-D? It’s been around since the 70s and, yes, made in a lab (or the equivalent). It’s like a mild form of LSD. There’s actually a whole line of them. I currently have 2C-C, 2C-D, 2C-E, 2C-I, 2C-T2, and 2C-T7.
I know. I take risks that not even I can honestly justify to myself.
Yeah, I’ve gathered that. Do understand though that not all of this is me trying to justify drug use–it’s mainly me trying to explain myself and describe what it’s like being the drug user I am. On top of that, there is some philosophical debating going on, but there I’m trying to generalize: I’m trying to think through the implications of drugs, drug use, and drug users without bringing myself into the picture. Can one use drugs for reasons other than trying to fill a void in their lives, for example–I think I’m too close to this to say with any certainly whether I’m trying to fill a void or not, but when I think about this question in principle, I don’t see a reason why not.
I had an idea: I’m going to let others here decide what the next combination is going to be. I’m going to do another stint after the office Christmas party. The first two stints I did were total abstinence. The last one was no caffeine only (alcohol and other drugs were allowed). What’s the next combination? No alcohol, but caffeine and other drugs are OK? No caffeine, no alcohol, but other drugs are OK? What?
If nobody speaks up and a decision can’t be made for whatever reason, I’ll just decide myself, but I think it might be fun to allow others to add their two cents and help me build this.
