Hi Fence, I apologize for the "post plug" stuff, though You are making bizarrely broad statements about the effects of 'drugs'Yes I am making broad statements, this is a forum I was hoping either some one would give opposing arguments or some thing which allowed me to clarify in my mind this concept?

From the way I perceive previous posts have been argued, would say if my wild statements had missed the point? then many of the forum members would have descended on me like a flock of hungry vultures??? using any language which may trigger massive rejection & self pity if they could?

As many of the forum members choose to back their arguments with text from published articles (obviously well read on many books), I choose to come from a feeling point ? i.e. how I feel about a comment or concept depends on what feeling arises in my mind when I put my self in that scenario. My model of "truth" tells me the most likely outcome & I do not question it.
I will possibly have to define my concept of "truth" if any one wants to take me to task? though if you thought my previous arguments were "bizarrely broad statements" just wait for my "Definition of Truth", yes it is pure speculation (has no foundation as far as I am aware? in any text).
and yes Re:Philosophy of drug use? is only a vehicle for understanding how my & your mind works.....

It might help first to establish what exactly this study would consist in. If it is just going to be a platform for espousing new age-y beliefs about returning to some sort of 'pure,' natural, childlike state, then I suggest we not have a philosophy of drugs at all and just do neuroscience about them instead.
I mean, there might even be something to drawing a link between childhood and different forms of experience -- e.g., www.nybooks.com/articles/23694 , www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/11/how_synaesthesia_gro.html -- but that doesn't necessarily justify romanticizing statements about how our minds have become 'clouded' and are being kept from the 'truth,' to be unlocked by ingesting (which?) psychotropic substances.

I didn't find Huxley's statements about our minds becoming clouded to be unduly romanticising or new-agey.

And he is clear that you won't unlock a "truth" by ingesting substances. And the substances in question are the psychedelics.

Erosopher wrote:
By the form of experience I mean that objects are available to us in a way that it would be impossible for them to be available to us otherwise.

It's still not clear to me what this means. So we are already doing "Philosophy of Drugs".


I suppose answering this question can provide us with an answer here: are there psychedelic experiences that could not be had without the use of drugs? That is, if we could employ whatever other technology we wish. If so, it seems whatever type of experience we are studying is not exclusively related to drugs so philosophy of drugs could be a tad restrictive.

You are introducing an unnecessary complication here. If we found that some other "technology" had the same effect as psychedelics, then the question would be "are there psychedelic experiences that could not be had without the use of drugs or the new technology".

So you can forget about the speculative "technology" and answer the question just in terms of the existing situation: are psychedelic experiences of a different form to non-psychedelic experiences. Back to the top of this post. What do you mean by "objects being available"?

TimeLine wrote:
Did I say the effects are solely good? It seems you are reading things into my drivel that weren't really there. And where do you see the self-servingness?
Heh, where do I see the self-servingness? If you say that people who don't take drugs don't understand, what exactly makes you understand? Gee, apparently I am a genius.


Maybe so. I still don't see how I am being self-serving.


Well, I seem to be surrounded by such people.
Again, what makes you think anyone cares about you being surrounded by such people?

Well, you seem to care about it, you keep talking about it. And it is quite an important aspect of human life. Most people care about such things. Are you sure you are a genius?


Nevertheless, I can see from your later posts that you have half a brain so I may as well ask you a question relating to this topic. Do you believe that psychedelic drugs remove filters or implant them?

I don't have quite such a mechanistic view of the mind, the "filters" are only an explanatory device.

ops... removed post.

I said:

Gee, apparently I am a genius.

Before you replied with:

Maybe so.



Well, you seem to care about it, you keep talking about it. And it is quite an important aspect of human life. Most people care about such things. Are you sure you are a genius?
Are you saying your opinions is an important aspect of human life? I don't think it takes a genius to distinguish pathological disorders. "Vanity is the fear of appearing original" thus spoke Nietzsche.

I don't have quite such a mechanistic view of the mind, the "filters" are only an explanatory device.
I see no explanation. Its quite late, i'm eating ice-cream, will go to bed soon, wake up, go to work, have Friday pizza for lunch and will return to read more of your Huxley approach.