 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)recycle Roger Wilco ...and 293 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614093 Today 6 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im sorry you were trying to close the thread on a pleasant note and i went and got all bitchy. i think the thread should continue but w peoples experiences. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Experiments, of course, whether in or out of the labs." First of all, that's not an answer to my question. I was asking what criteria one sets down to determine whether or not one should interpret the results of ones experiments as reducing or expanding consciousness. "can be verified and deepened by personal experiments." Or is it self-verifying in being the way you interpret what happens to you instead of what actually happens to you? Think about it for a while. "Your arguments for restricting personal freedoms can of course be argued from a socialist/authoritarian perspective." No, it can be argued from any perspective, including libertarian. "From a libertarian point of view there is no problem, since people are responsible for their own actions and consequently there's no freeloader problem." That doesn't even make sense. It is because you are responsible for your actions that you are able to be a freeloader. How does being responsible make it so that you aren't intentionally and avoidably taking up resources that someone who, strictly speaking, deserves those resources more than you (someone who couldn't avoid whatever made them require help)? "As it happens, I don't even support laissez-faire economics" Well, yes, but while my point was indeed valid in laissez-faire, I also said it was valid in libertarianism. "Oh? I see. That's interesting to know. I guess that's the basic difference between an authoritarian and liberal attitude." No, it's the difference between being responsible and irresponsible and it is the difference between recognising that freedom isn't some abstract liberum arbitrium and thinking it is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"i can't answer D_M's questions properly but thats partly because i don't see the point which may or may not be entirely my own fault." The point is that I have this weird sort of cold and I can't concentrate on reading what I actually have to read, so I'm just trying to get some more data into a hypothesis I've had for a while.. and hopefully piss a libertarian off in the process. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Right, I don't actually remember any grammatical rules, but you are of course correct. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wonder when it got that bad..? I also wonder: Is it incorrect, or is it still just the same "wordy" thing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or more of this |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well i am sorry, but you can't just subsitute an existing word with one you'd prefer but doesn't exist. hallucinogens (shorthand for hallucinogenic drugs) is a word, hallucinogenics isn't. there's nothing either one of us can do about it. read my previous post again if you still don't understand. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yea it sounds cooler to say it my way. people like me put aint in the dictionary. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nitpicking on bad spelling is all i am good for. DM or anyone will beat my ass in a discussion any day. just one more thing though, DM, how could you possibly argue that people don't have a right to choose what substances to consume? it really is beyond my last shreds of comprehension. Your argument of people using lsd possibly ending up in the hospital is ridiculous. Why don't we substitute hallucinogens with alcohol then, for the sake of more argument? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
for anyone interested: (articles, interviews, writings, links etc) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BoxBob>Hat is off sir. You have quite the way with words. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DM I agree with you on 99.9% of what you've had to say in the past, but in this discussion you seem fairly out of your depth. Mind you I've only ever had acid once, half a dose. All that can really be relayed to you is that it created a new language out of the symbols and experiences from within my own mental framework, thus what I received was decipherable only by me (afterall this 'language' was purely my own construction). This description should fit into your hypothesis anyway, so I've added nothing new here. But sharing the experience with others on LSD at the time seemed crucial, otherwise I would've been isolated in this recursive loop of my own thoughts. Not that this is a scary thing for me. However instead of focusing on my own reality, much more pleasure was derived from the shared experience while being under the influence. It seemed to cast a new light on the 'science of light' for me, and for that, I was very grateful. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL science of LIFE that should read.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes i am drunk, deal |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"just one more thing though, DM, how could you possibly argue that people don't have a right to choose what substances to consume?" My argument is about responsibility and I'm more of a virtue ethicist. It follows that it isn't really "atuhoritarian," as bob would have it, but personal matter; can you let yourself be that guy who is taking up the resources? Can you let yourself be that irresponsible guy? However, I do believe certain things should be restricted. This has more to do with freedom than anything else. If you were to argue that people should have the freedom to choose, you would first have to determine how free they really are in choosing (or if they're choosing). Sometimes, it's a matter of a more behavioural component, a Das Man, than of free will, and other times, it is acting (addiction and possibly also in the stages where one is "drawn" into it, suddenly confronted, and instead of making a proper decision, you "toss a coin," and end up with "oh, why the hell not?"). A failure to recognise this, along with BoxBob's failure to recognise the historicity of how he interprets his experiences with drugs illustrates the point that alienation-introspection can only get you so far.. or it illustrates the point that libertarians just don't think through things besides their own ideology. And, yeah, the argument goes out to alcohol as well as many other activities, but just because there are other activities that are dangerous as well that doesn't mean that the one you're undertaking suddenly becomes less dangerous, or that it is less serious that you're doing it. You still have the full responsibility. Also, I hate bad language, so it's good that you point it out to me when I'm wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
personally, if i had been an irresponsible 'drug' user i'm sure something immensely bad would have happened in the past 27 years. I find a night of heavy drinking one of the most irresponsible things to do (nearly got run over by a car the other day) so yes, i can compare it to psychedelics and say those substances i can use without feeling the least bit guilty or irresponsible about it. it amazes me how you assume these so-called 'resources' are taken up whenever people take a hit of acid. where do you get this idea? tons of people use psychedelics in a responsible way without ever bothering anyone else in the process. You can not say the same thing for alcohol, yet the use of that is approved by virtually anyone. you really haven't a clue just how far the introspection-alienation can really get you. I find it immensely strange how you condemn the use of mind altering drugs when you only know one side of the story. i suppose i agree with you on one thing and thats that we are indeed supposed to take responsibility for any action, but looking at the 'pro drug' people in this thread i don't see how you can still label them as irresponsible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"it amazes me how you assume these so-called 'resources' are taken up whenever people take a hit of acid." Whenever someone takes a hit of acid? I'm just stating the moral issue relating to when it goes wrong. Mostly because it is avoidable. "You can not say the same thing for alcohol" I think you'll find that it's just about the same. Everyone interprets their own circle as OK people, etc, but there really isn't that much of a difference. "you really haven't a clue just how far the introspection-alienation can really get you." I have a clue. I have many clues. I don't have your clue yet, but I have a feeling it won't differ too much from what I already know (prove me wrong). The irresponsibility bit is more directed at libertarianbob. The liberalist and libertarian ideologies of today are ideologies of irresponsibility. Parts of their irresponsibility also has hypnotic qualities ("do you oppose freedom?"), so they're spreading (forcing themselves on) to other people as well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thanks guys (marlowe, J198, hexane) for the nice words! "I was asking what criteria one sets down to determine whether or not one should interpret the results of ones experiments as reducing or expanding consciousness." No a priori criteria can determine what only experiments can show. You seem to think people go into these experiences with set ideas - but the experience itself is a "no bullshit" encounter where you better be prepared to be shaken of your preconceptions which are worth nothing at that point. "How does being responsible make it so that you aren't intentionally and avoidably taking up resources..." 1) You are still confusing (deliberately?) libertarian and socialist models. 2) Gaining insights does not constitute taking up resources. On the contrary, it provides new ones. "BoxBob's failure to recognise the historicity of how he interprets his experiences with drugs" Say what now? I'm sorry, but your assumptions are preposterous. You know nothing about my experiences or my interpretations of them. You throw in some Heideggerian terminology (das Man) but for what reason exactly? How seriously are you going to take existentialism? I feel we're drifting further and further away from the subject matter. "The liberalist and libertarian ideologies of today are ideologies of irresponsibility." That may be in some cases. But that has nothing do with the fact that taking LSD with due regard to set and setting has no more harmful consequences than reading a book. If you have a problem with a specific statement I've made that you've considered "irresponsible", please state it explicitly and your reasons why. Otherwise you're just generalizing based on some preconceptions and prejudices. (I see a trend here...) "Parts of their irresponsibility also has hypnotic qualities ("do you oppose freedom?"), so they're spreading (forcing themselves on) to other people as well." Sounds like there's a cabal of libertarians giving LSD-laced candy to kids in the str |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sounds like there's a cabal of libertarians giving LSD-laced candy to kids in the street corner. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"No a priori criteria can determine what only experiments can show." You're missing the entire point, but let's take it from your angle - in reverse. You've experienced something while on drugs, but what did you experience, exactly? What were the actual contents of your experience? Now, with that in mind, how do you determine that what you experienced was an "expansion" of consciousness or a reduction of it? "You seem to think people go into these experiences with set ideas" You go into all experiences with set ideas. You are already who you are and everything that is meaningful to you has already been historically constituted for you. You're not some abstract prejudice-free being set outside of the actual world you're living in. You have interpreted the experience of the drug as one that expands consciousness. Plaidzebra apparently encountered some religious aspect. In that respect, he's closer to tribal peoples who may use drugs in that way, but they may also use them as a way of bringing their own world's constitution back, re-actualising it, as it were. A neurologist, however, would tell you that, quantitatively speaking, across these different experiences what happens is largely similar (of course it depends on what drug you use, but still). "1) You are still confusing (deliberately?) libertarian and socialist models. " No, I'm not. I'm stating that a result of a free will is responsibility, and that in this world, there aren't infinite resources. A result of this is that use = consumption, rendering whatever it is you are using inaccessible to other people who may need it at the same time. "2) Gaining insights does not constitute taking up resources. On the contrary, it provides new ones. " Stay within the example if you are trying to criticise the example. "You know nothing about my experiences or my interpretations of them." You have told me about your interpretations. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"You throw in some Heideggerian terminology (das Man) but for what reason exactly?" To illustrate a point about freedom. "How seriously are you going to take existentialism?" Very. "But that has nothing do with the fact that taking LSD with due regard to set and setting has no more harmful consequences than reading a book." The possible consequences of taking LSD are different and far more serious than the possible consequences of reading a book. The only way to normally get hurt while reading a book is when you aren't responsible for getting hurt (an earthquake, for instance. Of course, if you're reading a book while trying to drive, that's a different matter, but it isn't a very likely situation, and doing so would make you just as bad as when you avoidably end up in hospital because you have done drugs). "If you have a problem with a specific statement I've made that you've considered "irresponsible", please state it explicitly and your reasons why." Oh, god, you're not an Ayn Rand "objectivist," are you? Anyway, if you want a specific statement, look back at what part of your libertarianism I first reacted to.. the thing about the right to do whatever you want to your own body. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A++ PHIL0OSOFY PAPERS FROM THE DRUNK MATER ACE YOU'RE ESSAY 100% GARANTEED i would like to hire him personally |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Very." Good, then we have at least one thing in common. As a Heidegger specialist, I think your interpretations are weird, but so be it. Existentialism is all about taking responsibility for one's actions, which is all I'm demanding. "The possible consequences of taking LSD are different and far more serious than the possible consequences of reading a book." "Possible consequences" can be very very unlikely indeed. Certainly nowhere on the scale of driving a car or eating a fat steak, not to mention alcohol or other serious drugs. Plus, dontcha know books are power? The Bible press launched the Protestant Reforms, Marx and Engels's Manifesto the communist revolutions, and T.S. Eliot's Wasteland a new phase of modernist poetry. That's why censorship is so prevalent and why books are burnt. This same concern underlies anti-psychedelic censorship as well: fear of social restructuring. "Oh, god, you're not an Ayn Rand "objectivist," are you?" Strange conclusion. Ayn Rand is rubbish. I consider myself more of an anarchist than a libertarian, precisely in order to make my allegiances clear. Anarchic writers I admire include Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, R.U. Sirius, J.R.R. Tolkien, Bertrand Russell, Peter Kropotkin, Max Stirner, Leo Tolstoy, Terence McKenna, Robert Anton Wilson, Hakim Bey, Bob Black, John Zerzan, Guy Debord, George Carlin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gilles Deleuze, Lao Tzu... "the right to do whatever you want to your own body" Since you have no conception of private property, you almost make out to be an anarchist, heheh... But why do you not oppose the right to eat ice cream, for example? "Obese" is the new "Smoker" (in terms of social ill effects), haven't you heard? Lastly, if you are so concerned about social risks, why don't you support taxed regulation? VAT tax on LSD, for example. This would fund all potential social costs in advance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I remember when J.R.R. Tolkein carved an anarchy symbol into C.S. Lewis' forehead at a Chumbawumba concert. Seriously though BoxBob: do you have that 2 CD In Memorium Gilles Deleuze compilation? I love that set has tracks by mouse on mars, zoviet france, alec empire, jim o'rourke, oval etc. and some samples of mr deleuze talking. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
re: deleuze Wow! I need to get that! thanks for the tip. ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But to close my contribution to this thread, I will just provide an account of some "possible consequences" of psychedelic use. (For another account, see Bill Hicks's famous rap.) This concerns the only time I ever took LSA (the natural analogue of LSD) or any other psychedelic. It was a very low dose, but the effects were "high." On a higher dose, it might have become much more chaotic but also potentially even more beneficial, who knows. During the course of about 6 hours, I learned many interesting things. I gained insight into the constitution of phenomenological movement as temporal appearance, the non-violence necessary for reciprocal communication, the pointlessness of drinking alcohol and eating fast food, the finer points on Sartre's social philosophy (which I was reading that day), the semiotic organization of malls and some interesting things about electronic music. Yes, of course that had to do with my own preoccupations at the time, but that's precisely the point: it gives you a different perspective (in my case crystal clear) on what you've been thinking about for years. That's not to mention the afterglow that lasted for days, during which time I was quite creative musically. So overall, time well spent? Yea, I'd say so. Five years later, no ill effects to report as of yet. As for practical consequences, well, I've ceased alcohol consumption (except for the occasional glass of wine), eating meat and other unhealthy practices and posturing. Very therapeutic in fact. I don't think I'll ever do it again, at least not for a long time, but as a once in a lifetime kind of thing it was very useful. Ill effects can occur, of course, but that's mostly due to set and setting and negative social pressures. To cut down on those we need a reasoned reform in drug policy, and in general an openness towards tolerance and care. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I think your interpretations are weird" How so? Das Man is an inauthentic way of life. If you live as Das Man, you aren't free. That was my point. If you're a Heidegger specialist, you should probably be acquainted with the phenomenological notion of lebenswelt (perhaps welt at times in Heidegger). You should also be familiar with the article on the nature of technics (I don't know the exact English title, but hopefully you know what I mean), but I fail to understand what sort of meaning you attach to the word "expert" if you (a) haven't read it or (b) haven't understood it (which is implied in what you say about empirical findings). "Existentialism is all about taking responsibility for one's actions, which is all I'm demanding." Not all, but a big part, yes. However, taking responsibility for your actions isn't something relating to the past. You can act responsibly in the moment, with an eye to the future (the likely or planned future, but that's the only sense of future that makes sense anyway). It isn't enough to just repent after having done it; there's no god to absolve you anyway. "Certainly nowhere on the scale of driving a car or eating a fat steak, not to mention alcohol or other serious drugs." ..and this makes a difference how, exactly? "Yeah, someone else is killing someone somewhere in the world right now, so it's ok if I maim you." "This same concern underlies anti-psychedelic censorship as well: fear of social restructuring." It's possible; I don't know anything about the intentions of those who have prohibited these kinds of things, but to me it's an existential and moral issue. "Strange conclusion. Ayn Rand is rubbish." Well, at least we agree on this. It was a combination of your take on empirical experiments and the immediately preceding question. "why do you not oppose the right to eat ice cream, for example?" Well, we're discussing drugs right now. Should I list every bad thing in the world every time I criticise one bad t |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
-hing "Lastly, if you are so concerned about social risks, why don't you support taxed regulation?" Even from that kind of economical perspective, prevention is better. About all those things that you gained insight into. How, exactly, did you gain insight into them when on drugs? You don't have to do all, just take one that's more or less representative. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
MY GAAAWD. this thread turned out to be a nightmarish trip. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
To fathom hell or soar angelic, just take a pinch of xltronic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
