Amy Winehouse’s heart breaking journey……
Watched this recently, in two sittings, the devastation of it all!
youtube.com/watch?v=Za3lZcrzzcM
youtube.com/watch?v=KUmZp8pR1uc
R.I.P Amy
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.
First Product of mulling:
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.
Makes sense to me.
I’m not arguing that it should be.
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.
Caffeine and alcohol, no drugs - what will your consumption of them be like without the drugs 
Then it’s settled.
Probably the same.
So today is the staff Christmas party. I’m already drinking my first coffee of the day, will be getting drunk this evening, and most likely stoned when I get home tonight.
Then tomorrow it will be complete sobriety… from pot. The drinking and caffeine consumption will continue as per Mags’ recommendation. Will be doing this until Feb. 11. The 12th will be a Friday, so it’s a perfect day to drink, get caffeinated, and stoned. Hopefully, I’ll have a new music mix by then.
But honestly, I’m not expecting much from this round. I don’t expect to feel much different. The caffeine and the alcohol are what’s really killing me. The pot not so much (I don’t think). If anything, it might increase my levels of paranoia but that tends to stick with me whether I smoke weed regularly or not. Other than that, I’ll probably get a lot more work done.
But who knows. I may be surprised.
It’s been about 2 weeks now and so far so good.
My mood? I’m on the upswing. Good stuff. Is it because of the lack of cannabis? Who knows. I know that I’ve been doing a pretty good job at work, accomplishing a lot of tasks in a timely manner, and that makes me feel good. Am I doing a better job because of fewer drugs in my system. I really don’t know.
I haven’t really had any strong cravings. In fact, I’ve been having stronger cravings for cigarettes than for pot. And btw, that’s another thing:
I also decided to quit smoking… cold turkey… forever.
That’s another story that’s long. I’ve always been an occasional smoker. Would smoke with friends and on social outings and stuff. Ever since my wife and I separated however, I’ve been living on my own and there has been nothing stopping me from buying a pack. I’d usually buy the single cigars but ever since they banned them (the reasoning behind this law is outrageously stupid and I won’t get into it) I caved in and bought a pack. My first time.
So I promised myself one smoke from the pack a week. That lasted for maybe two weeks and then it became two per week, then three. Pretty soon I was smoking one a day, sometimes two. I decided to play on my own psychology like I usually do. I kept the pack in the glove compartment of my Durrango down in the garage. I figured if it was harder to get, I’d smoke them less. This worked for a bit, but eventually I just started caving in and going down to get one.
So one day, a few weeks before Dec 11 (the start of my current stint), I got stoned and found the inspiration to make a commitment to myself to quit smoking for good. And I did. This has stuck with me so far. I do get the odd craving to go out onto the balcony and have a smoke, but it isn’t the irresistible urge most smokers say it is. This isn’t that hard.
Today is February 11, the day that my current 2 month stint ends.
What did we learn this month, kids, what did we learn about consuming caffeine and alcohol without the cannibinoids?
Well, as usual, it’s hard to tell. I think abstaining from cannibinoids has made me less emotional, better able to handle hardships, but this is a very subjective and unmeasured assessment.
I’ve been through a few trials in the last month that were pretty harsh to take but I didn’t find myself being “caught” in the emotions that were invoked. What I mean is that although there’s been a lot of angst and anger and depression and fear, I found myself kind of sitting in the back seat of my mind just watching it–watching myself, watching my mind, watching my behavior, and just stoicly taking it in. That’s not to say I felt no emotions, but that I was able to keep a split between the lower self which is caught in the sticky webs of the emotional roller-coaster and the higher self which simply sits back and observes.
All I know about this two month stint without cannibinoids is that I observed myself doing this. I don’t know if this is because of the absence of cannibinoids or if this happens all the time anyway, but I noticed it.
January was quite a month for me. On January 4th, first thing in the morning, I got laid off. My project manager was kind enough to suggest to me that I contact ACM, a former client of ours, because he had heard they were looking for software developers. So I did. I contacted a former acquaintance there, emailed him my resume and cover letter, and ask him to pass it along to the boss. He did that, and a few days later I got a call back from them saying they were going to coordinate a job interview with Quadrus, the software company that they recently hired to take on their software projects. I had an edge because one of the upcoming projects they wanted to get started on was SafeGuard Profiler, an application that I used to work on at CoreData. No one at Quadrus knew the application or the code behind it. I did. So I went for the job interview, it went swimmingly, did a practicum they gave me, aced it with flying colors, basked in their praises of my performance on it, and essentially got the job. The actual arrangement for me to start working took a while, but it did happen: on Feb. 1st. I am now making 50% more than I was at my previous job (but with greater costs and risks).
So I’m employed again. But there is a catch. I’m now a contractor. For the first time in my life, I own my own business. It’s relatively knew to me and I’m still working out the finances and tax implications. But at least I’m employed.
Now along side this, there is another development: I go to the Saskatchewan Pub, a local bar in my neighborhood. I meet a guy from Quebec there who tells me that I’m an awesome guy to hang out with, have a beer with, but I would never survive in a court of law acting as my own lawyer. I know it’s the truth. I’m suddenly hit with the realization: this guys knows a shit load about me after only 5 minutes of conversing with me. I suddenly realize how transparent I am.
Later that night, I start talking with another dude at the bar. He turns out to be a spiritualist of some kind, or at least someone subject to spiritual experiences. He claims to be able to see the future. He puts it hypothetically: what if I were to tell you that you will be a millionaire, and married to a beautiful woman, would you believe me? I say no: I don’t believe nor do I disbelieve. He seems disappointed. He keeps reiterating the hypothetical scenario, getting emotional, even angry. He tells me: if it actually happened to you, then you would believe, wouldn’t you? I say: of course. He keeps reiterating the prophecy. I start to get the impression he’s not speaking hypothetically anymore, but that in order for the prophecy to come true, I have to believe it. But I can’t ask him: do I need to believe it in order for it to come true? That would defeat the purpose. At the same time, he can’t just deliver the prophecy in a non-hypothetical way, for then I would surely disbelieve it, sabotaging the entire operation. I’m speechless in the end. I say: I don’t know how to respond to that. I’ve hit a brick wall.
About a week later, I meet a beautiful blond.
The following Monday, I go back to the Saskatchewan Pub. Again, I meet a couple guys from Quebec. We start talking. The one guy tells me “I can tell you’re weak”. I ask him what he means by this. He says: you cannot lie. He then proceeds to show me how he and his buddy can spew bull shit like it’s child’s play. Again, I’m transparent to total strangers after 5 minutes of conversation. They can tell I wouldn’t survive as a lawyer (or politician, or salesman, or businessman).
Some time in the next few months, I’m going to buy a house. I’m going to rent half of it and live in the other half. This will save me $1000 a month and make me an extra $500.
I am 7 months out of a failed marriage.
It’s obvious to me that I’m going through a transition. First my marriage ends. Then I lose my job. Almost simultaneously I get a new job and find another woman, making more money, and possibly even more money in the next several month if this house thing pans out. The girl isn’t working out so well if you follow the link above, but since when were prophecies set in stone.
Anyway, throughout all this, I’ve kept my calm despite how emotional it’s all been. Is this because of a lack of cannibinoids in my system or do I draw connections between things with my fertile imagination that aren’t really related at all?
Oh, BTW, still not smoking.
I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t try to interject some temptation.
Too late my man, the 2 month stint is over.
And besides, it was weed I was depriving myself of, not booz. Perhaps you should have posted this:
My mistake. 
Gib wrote:
I have always thought this about you Gib:
You play your cards close to your chest and you are a shrewd operator, even though it seems otherwise, as you do have the tendency to act in the way you think people expect of you, but thinking about this, you do this for a reason.
I think all round Gib has been grossly under estimated, not only by people he knows, but by himself also, you must be surprising yourself daily.
I really thought the booze and drugs would get the better of you, but you prove me wrong and I happily acknowledge this.
All you need now is experience in the affairs of the heart and you are older now, so your past failures are not applicable to who you are today.
Kudos to Gib!
Are you in America? Is the housing market still depressed?
Thank you, Shieldy.
And again, I take back what I said to you earlier: I really, really don’t hate you.
I’m in Canada, and yes the housing market is still depressed, pretty much all over North America. But that’s a good thing for buyers.
I decided to chart my progress:
One good thing that’s come out of this is that I want to speed up the process. I want it to happen sooner.
There seems to be an average of six month periods between these stints. I have to half that. 3 months (or thereabouts).
And once I go through all combinations, I want to take a 1 year break from all drugs and alcohol. I think if there’s one thing these past several stints have been teaching me is that I need a lot more than 2 months.