Psychedelics, Science and Politics

[ophiuchus]

I just wonder why this form of set and setting is insisted on? Why not communing in nature?

for one, most people spend their entire lives, never once stopping what they are doing and closing their eyes for a moment; just being. many full grown adults will live all the way to their last days, afraid of the dark, afraid to be alone... many people have never experienced no-stimluli, and instinctively find some noise to create when there is silence. they cant be comfortable by themselves, it is as though they must confront themselves simply existing, and they simply cannot do it. they must have stimuli to distract them. there are more of these people than one would imagine... that's the emphasis on this in the studies. one cannot seriously consider themselves spiritual, and in touch with (their) spirituality if they cannot be content to exist with themselves, a spirit! (without constant distraction from that)

another thing to consider, this technique is definitely relative to dose. if you take a large enough dose, then thats all that one is able to handle, stimuation-wise. anything else is just too much sensory stimulation to comfortably endure. in other words, that is all that one would really want to do at a dose that high. anything else is maddening.

if anyone doesnt know what i mean, then taking a higher dose is in order.

also, glad to hear it already mentioned. any study ive ever heard of generally had some kind of outdoor nature activity after the peak. i personally find myself drawn to nature after an experience. really though i am always drawn to nature, but getting caught up in civilization can distract one from this.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

Well I wonder why you seem to assume I mean 'recreation' when I say about open eyed and/or open eyed/closed eyed experience in nature. I am gonna look up a definition of that term:

I wasn't assuming anything about you; I was referring to people who take it for fun. I've written on this in a way not dismissive of the benefits that can be received. There's nothing wrong with fun, and it can be very healing. The kinds of experiences you're describing are profound and beneficial. That's not being denied. However, they're different.
http://michaelvipperman.wordpress.com/2 ... ional-use/

Can you elaborate that assertion? I mean, say that I have eyes open in a psychedelic trip in natural surroundings, and I see a mountain, and the light is utterly aweinspiringly magical, and I walk towards this vision an feel spiritually embodied and connected to all the wild sounds of nature, the air, the scents.....and so on.

That's all well and good but it's not even a hint toward what psychedelics are capable of. It sounds like you aren't even aware of the rabbit hole's existence.

Where is the data that must prove to me that that experience is less 'strong' than any introspective experience. I am just curious about this. Who is deciding that introspection is 'stronger'. I am not saying it isn't very powerful though of course

Everyone who's ever had both kinds of experiences. I suggest you try it the other way some time and see what I'm talking about; take a strong dose, put on some music, lie down and close your eyes.

If you're on, say, 25 mg 2C-E and you walk around/talk to people, you'll probably have excited thought processes, etc, and things might be pretty cool/interesting. As soon as you shut up and go inward, you're flying through complex geometric visions saturated with gnostic insight. If you don't understand the distinction I suspect you've never truly tripped at all... either your doses have been too mild or you've distracted yourself too much and never actually gone into it.

That said you don't need to be in a clinic to do this, nor do you need to spend your entire trip on it. But if you don't spend at least some time going inward, you've wasted it.

 

[IJesusChrist]

If you're on, say, 25 mg 2C-E and you walk around/talk to people, you'll probably have excited thought processes, etc, and things might be pretty cool/interesting. As soon as you shut up and go inward, you're flying through complex geometric visions saturated with gnostic insight. If you don't understand the distinction I suspect you've never truly tripped at all... either your doses have been too mild or you've distracted yourself too much and never actually gone into it.

If you're on any strong psychodelic...



Talking gets you out of a bad trip fast, that is one thing I learned. You realize how dramatically different the two parts of the brain are. As soon as you shut up and stop thinking about the societal situation you were just partaking in - vroom down a tunnel and where the hell you end up is anyone's guess.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

Yep! I just used 25 mg 2C-E as an example of a "strong psychedelic." 250 micrograms of acid would work just as well.

 

[zezt]

Well I wonder why you seem to assume I mean 'recreation' when I say about open eyed and/or open eyed/closed eyed experience in nature. I am gonna look up a definition of that term:

I wasn't assuming anything about you; I was referring to people who take it for fun. I've written on this in a way not dismissive of the benefits that can be received. There's nothing wrong with fun, and it can be very healing. The kinds of experiences you're describing are profound and beneficial. That's not being denied. However, they're different.
http://michaelvipperman.wordpress.com/2 ... ional-use/

Can you elaborate that assertion? I mean, say that I have eyes open in a psychedelic trip in natural surroundings, and I see a mountain, and the light is utterly aweinspiringly magical, and I walk towards this vision an feel spiritually embodied and connected to all the wild sounds of nature, the air, the scents.....and so on.

That's all well and good but it's not even a hint toward what psychedelics are capable of. It sounds like you aren't even aware of the rabbit hole's existence.

Also please yourself dont jump to conclusions, I have had psychedelic experience since 1971--I am guessing before you were born? lol--and of course I have both had experience eyes open and shut. But it is very revealing when you suggest that experincing nature in such deep levels is somehow less than introspection---that is exactly what I am questioning. To say "It sounds like you aren't even aware of the rabbit hole's existence." for example speaks to me that you consider experincing nature in a deep way 'fun' and somehow not as powerful as inner space. This also gives me a feeling that an inner and outer is being divided somehow--I cant quote put my finger on it to articulate it adequately. But WHY is seeing DEEP into the wonderful mysterious world NOT also introspection? Also both introspection and observation. I want to make it clear that I am not saying that total introspection as you recommend isn't very powerful though, but to assume open-eyed observation is 'fun' seems to suggest it is somehow superficial. I just wonder how you measure this IF you dont include open-eyed research?

Where is the data that must prove to me that that experience is less 'strong' than any introspective experience. I am just curious about this. Who is deciding that introspection is 'stronger'. I am not saying it isn't very powerful though of course

Everyone who's ever had both kinds of experiences. I suggest you try it the other way some time and see what I'm talking about; take a strong dose, put on some music, lie down and close your eyes.

If you're on, say, 25 mg 2C-E and you walk around/talk to people, you'll probably have excited thought processes, etc, and things might be pretty cool/interesting. As soon as you shut up and go inward, you're flying through complex geometric visions saturated with gnostic insight. If you don't understand the distinction I suspect you've never truly tripped at all... either your doses have been too mild or you've distracted yourself too much and never actually gone into it.

That said you don't need to be in a clinic to do this, nor do you need to spend your entire trip on it. But if you don't spend at least some time going inward, you've wasted it.

No but I didn't mean walking around and talking to people. May be this is your confusion as to knowing what I mean. I am very aware how talking can limit the potential of psychedelic experience. I have known this sadly with some people I have tripped with--mostly on magic mushrooms. They will choose to talk and talk, and I feel they do this to block out going deeper, which listening to music and walking, sitting, or lying, in nature QUIETLY would bring.

One trip I had on magic mushrooms began with me and a friend eating quite a few raw magic mushrooms--the Libery Cap little uns. We began painting on canvas with oils, and the music was very powerful and when I shut my eyes I was flying through space, through the coils of what I envisaged was a cosmic-sized serpent, and playing hide and seek behind these coils were the duendes, or the faeries--who seemed full of humour and I felt were guiding the Trip, and when I opened my eyes I was there in the room, eyes shuit I am in that space. As the visions became freaky--a whirlpool of dead bodies, I freaked out, and did not go with this inner visiont. So in that instance recreational tripping got in the way of going through that powerful experience, because i was self-conscious going with it with my friend who was on another wavelength. However, if serious in nature I dont see why there cant be that intent both eyes open and eyes closed.

In Hofmann's book, My Problem Child, there's a trip report where this couple have psychedelic experience with eyes open and experience a very freaky trip where the surroundings take on what they feel, but it also has deep meaningful effect on them.

 

[tammuz]

If you're on, say, 25 mg 2C-E and you walk around/talk to people, you'll probably have excited thought processes, etc, and things might be pretty cool/interesting. As soon as you shut up and go inward, you're flying through complex geometric visions saturated with gnostic insight. If you don't understand the distinction I suspect you've never truly tripped at all... either your doses have been too mild or you've distracted yourself too much and never actually gone into it.

If you're on any strong psychodelic...



Talking gets you out of a bad trip fast, that is one thing I learned. You realize how dramatically different the two parts of the brain are. As soon as you shut up and stop thinking about the societal situation you were just partaking in - vroom down a tunnel and where the hell you end up is anyone's guess.

LOL yeah run howling back to the left brain.....kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[tammuz]

ANY kind of clinical setting is the wrong setting. Period.

Clinical setting equates to an alteration of 'set and setting', and it isn't a beneficial alteration.


What kind of intelligent person wants to have some damn stranger probing them?

This is psychedelics 101, and it shouldn't have to be elaborated on to anyone posting here, but I have read some unbelievably naive posts from some self-professed psychonauts here.....

 

[MichaelVipperman]

ANY kind of clinical setting is the wrong setting. Period.

Clinical setting equates to an alteration of 'set and setting', and it isn't a beneficial alteration.


What kind of intelligent person wants to have some damn stranger probing them?

This is psychedelics 101, and it shouldn't have to be elaborated on to anyone posting here, but I have read some unbelievably naive posts from some self-professed psychonauts here.....

Are you familiar with what's meant by the psychotherapeutic setting? What about it do you object to? When people make comments like this I generally suspect they have a very bad impression of what "clinical" means, and that it isn't actually Grof's best practices they're objecting to. That you refer to "some damn stranger probing them" highlights this; the established method requires the prior establishment of a trust relationship, and selection of loving, supportive guides who've had intense psychedelic experiences of their own. They aren't "some damn stranger," and they don't "probe" you (in the Hopkins experiments they checked blood pressure and heart rate every couple hours, but that's fairly non-invasive, and each time they asked permission first).

@zezt
Fair enough. The point is not that you can't have powerful experiences that are outward directed or which involve a visual focus... certainly not; in some cases a visual focus can actually help make things stronger. But you do need to go into it, one way or another, or it won't be nearly as intense. As you say, you can also introspect while in and looking at nature... but that's all I'm claiming: that introspection makes it more powerful. The psychotherapeutic setting is simply designed around maximizing introspection by minimizing distractions. As long as you can fully surrender to the experience and go into it (and remain safe), the particulars of the setting are not hugely important, and the more beautiful/natural your surroundings generally the better... but that comes at the tradeoff of adding distractions and potentially reducing safety.

For the record my first ego-death experience was in a public park, lying on a grassy hill. Because I lay down and went into it, and had friends with me so I felt safe, that was an ideal setting. But tripping in a park is not as reliable as tripping in a beautifully laid out room full of art and music.

 

[zezt]

Have you described in more detail this experience you had anywhere? I would be interested to read it.

 

[tammuz]

ANY kind of clinical setting is the wrong setting. Period.

Clinical setting equates to an alteration of 'set and setting', and it isn't a beneficial alteration.


What kind of intelligent person wants to have some damn stranger probing them?

This is psychedelics 101, and it shouldn't have to be elaborated on to anyone posting here, but I have read some unbelievably naive posts from some self-professed psychonauts here.....

Are you familiar with what's meant by the psychotherapeutic setting? What about it do you object to? When people make comments like this I generally suspect they have a very bad impression of what "clinical" means, and that it isn't actually Grof's best practices they're objecting to. That you refer to "some damn stranger probing them" highlights this; the established method requires the prior establishment of a trust relationship, and selection of loving, supportive guides who've had intense psychedelic experiences of their own. They aren't "some damn stranger," and they don't "probe" you (in the Hopkins experiments they checked blood pressure and heart rate every couple hours, but that's fairly non-invasive, and each time they asked permission first.

YES I do know what you imply with the example of Grof, et al, the so-called therapeutic setting. I have a very good idea of what 'clinical' means ala 'western medicine', the question is, DO YOU?

Stanislav Grof is to be respected, surely, for his work. I am not taking issue with that. BUT he is THE EXCEPTION to the rule.


When you refer to the need for a trust relationship and loving supportive guides THESE ARE THE TRUE COMPONENTS OF MOST OF THE PROGRESS ala set and setting.

By your own admission their types of probing, measuring, etc is

"fairly non-invasive"


that, my friend, is your opinion

that being said, NOWHERE in the practice of psychoanalytic medicine in America are 'caring people' or 'trust relationships' emphasized very much.

The Jungian SHADOW of the Western medical establishment rides herd in almost everyones subconscious here, there IS a deep distrust of medicine in general, and it is JUSTIFIED.....most people are conflicted pertaining to it as well, since we have all been programmed to trust doctors, yet THEY are the ones prescribing all these drugs that end up making people sicker than they originally were. (spice, tell us why they do that again?)


your caveat of trust, and love, and prior experience with psychedelics is reminiscent, to me, of these 'detox' flush kits that people buy, which say something like-

"take contents of package with 2 liters of water and drink 1/2 liter every 45 minutes for 4 hours. Once you are urinating every 15 minutes you are 'clear' and can pass a urinanalysis fo 2-3 hours"

as with your advice, 'most' of the magic is IN THE DIRECTIONS

 

[MichaelVipperman]

You said "any kind of clinical setting is the wrong setting. Period." Now you say that Grof is an exception, as are apparently everyone else who's doing psychedelic psychotherapy nowadays, because they're all using the best practices he established.

Your criticisms of psychotherapy are correct. For the most part it's pretty messed up, badly designed, ignorant, etc. But only when it's being done badly by ignorant fools (who, unfortunately, appear to be in the majority). When it's done well by wise, loving people (such as Grof, such as Zeff, such as the psychologists in the Hopkins experiments), it's very effective and wonderful healing.

Yes, it's my opinion that having my blood pressure checked isn't too invasive, so if I were there I would have consented to it. Those whose opinion is that it IS too invasive wouldn't have had their blood pressure checked, because they would not have consented.

For the record, I don't really approve of regular blood pressure testing... it's not TOO invasive, but it is a LITTLE invasive, and more importantly it's just plain unnecessary. So it's not part of Grof's best practices; it was being used in ADDITION to his best practices in the Hopkins experiments because of the experimental design. However, it's not considered to be an important part, and may be dropped in future experiments. Note that going to an experiment that uses a therapeutic modality is categorically different than going to therapy... different rules, different approach, different orientation, different goals. Similar practices, similar experience.

Have you described in more detail this experience you had anywhere? I would be interested to read it.

No. At present my only publicly available trip report is my experience with Iboga this July:
http://michaelvipperman.wordpress.com/2 ... -business/

The experience on the hill in the park was a major contributing factor to the direction my life has taken since... a wakeup call, the realisation that identity structures are on some level arbitrary, total destruction of my sense of self and an awareness of the importance of relationships with people as unfolding dynamic processes rather than static facts. Pretty intense stuff. Was my second time taking mushrooms and my first intense psychedelic trip... probably 4 years ago or so?

 

[zezt]

I am very hoping you do soon write in detail about it. Your insights there remind me what I have been researching recently. I think questioning is very important, and the action of it is of the same ilik of what I think you mean by "unfolding dynamic processes rather than static facts" Ie., take Jungian thought. Do some take what he said as static--set in stone or do we question thinkers like Jung, as we do Freud, and Einstein, and Descartes, etc etc?
So anyhow I was reading a critique aboout Jung here Chapter 3: The Feminist Critique of the Separated Self --here's an example:

Jungian psychology. In both cases, we can find the assumption that psychological maturation requires the separation of the individual from his or her mother, a separation Keller believes to be rooted in the original mind-body separation of western thought. Keller's critique of Jungian psychology in particular will demonstrate how acute this problem is felt to be in contemporary society and, thus, may be the basis of a paradigm shift in how self is conceived.

So what is being questioned is the assumption shared by Jung and the mythologist, Joseph Campbell, etc, is that there must happen an heroic 'Self', which Campbell elaborated into his 'hero' and 'monomyth' he believed to be inherent in a 'perennial philosophy'---where as this idea of a 'Self' and/or 'hero' establishing itself ONLY through 'defeat' of 'the unconscious' (the Mother) is based on a STATIC concept of a God image---a transcendental idea supposed to reside in heaven who never changes

This tallies with other researches of mine where I found that the very concept of static Gods (monotheism) and 'gods'--such as the patriarchal Olympian polythesism of ancient Greece, suppressed the more ancient understanding that gods can actually be the very psychedelic plants, fungi. substances one consumes and that these gods then possess us--the literally die to walk with us, and of course these kinds of gods are more associated with the Goddess than with a 'sky father' because they open our bodyminds to nature.

I personally experience that sense of dynamically unfolding self or selves when I trip--in that whatever I am doing I merge into that--there is no resisting static 'self' who does not want to become whatever it is being experienced. I think this is what empathy is isn't it when you 'become' your observation and feel the other self or selves?

 

[MichaelVipperman]

Here's my article on the best-practices: http://michaelvipperman.wordpress.com/2 ... erapeutic/

Jung was pretty insistent on models being contextually contingent approximations at best. He heavily resisted the notion that any chart or explanation of "how things work" was ultimately true; rather, his interest was in whether a given model, chart, etc was useful, insisting that it not be applied outside of context(s) in which it appears to be helping, and that it never be taken to be "the way things are."

He even said at one point something like: all psychological theories are merely maps of the psyche of the theorist.

That right there is the critical difference between him and Freud. Freud figured out how a few minds work and wanted to generalise that. Jung rejected generalisation.

The feminist critique you're speaking of, I'm certain Jung himself would have been totally in agreement with and that it wouldn't have bothered him. Of course our psychic contents are bound up in the state of our culture... as our culture changes, what maturity will look like will change as well, and so must therapeutic priorities and modalities. None of his explanations are supposed to be of general applicability beyond the people, situations and times he was discussing.

"Individuality" is the most obvious area in which this plays out. At the time Jung was writing, science was confirming individuality and separation; after he died, science started confirming interconnectivity and undermining the notion of the individual, such that it's now largely been rejected even within the social sciences. A lot of what Jung spoke about in terms of the collective conscious and collective unconscious hints in this direction, and was "ahead of its time" in a lot of ways, but we can't really blame him for not having been exposed to queer theory, post structuralism and chaos mathematics. I think he would have adored all three, but they came later. And many of his insights are still totally valid if we incorporate those other insights into them.

 

[spice]

You said "any kind of clinical setting is the wrong setting. Period." Now you say that Grof is an exception

Michael, where are you, Cali?

I have to agree with tammuz, Stan Grof and all his disciples represent probaby less than one per cent of what passes for psychotherapy in this country today, and they aren't at all representative of a 'clinical setting' in this country today.

What does (and you know this) pass for psychotherapy today is what psyCHIATRISTS do, prescribe, prescribe prescribe.

Until the medical establishment can shake the reigns of economics, the lobby controls the accepted methods of 'treatment', and that treatment is as far from Grof, et al, as can be.

I really feel you're in a bit of an Ivory Tower here....

 

[IJesusChrist]

I saw this video on holistic cancer treatments and I Think it might pertain to what is being said here, as far as psychotherapy.

In holistic medicine, you don't have any medicine, and thus you can't really have a control.

And since you can't have a "control" i.e. you can't have a placebo, you can't do blind or double-blind studies. Therefore, holistic medicine can never enter into statistical analysis and thus is never going to become an actual "science" therapy.

Although you can give people blind and double blind studies for drugs, it is very hard to quantify anything, and very expensive - you would have to track people for a while, months if not years to see outcomes and relations to the drug experience, and people aren't willing to fund this type of research (yet) so it makes it very hard for this research to get going.

I believe if more people with money, like Steve Jobs, start doing psychedelics, or have a history of doing them at least once - this research may start to get funded and we may see a break through.

I really think the only way we can ever achieve psychedelic freedom is through this process. I don't think waving signs and screaming in court about our human rights is going to do anything.

Although I hate to say it, we have to play through the system. By winning through the system, we change the system, and take hold of it.

I have hope :wink:

 

[MichaelVipperman]

You said "any kind of clinical setting is the wrong setting. Period." Now you say that Grof is an exception

Michael, where are you, Cali?

I have to agree with tammuz, Stan Grof and all his disciples represent probaby less than one per cent of what passes for psychotherapy in this country today, and they aren't at all representative of a 'clinical setting' in this country today.

They are, however, representative of what a clinical setting for psychedelics is, because those other "psychotherapists" you refer to are not doing psychedelic therapy.

and I'm in Toronto (in a much nicer country than yours ). It says so under my profile picture.

 

[zezt]

I believe if more people with money, like Steve Jobs, start doing psychedelics, or have a history of doing them at least once - this research may start to get funded and we may see a break through.

I really think the only way we can ever achieve psychedelic freedom is through this process. I don't think waving signs and screaming in court about our human rights is going to do anything.

Although I hate to say it, we have to play through the system. By winning through the system, we change the system, and take hold of it.

I have hope :wink:

All ways have to be encouraged. Ie.,take Casey, this guy made LSD in his little magic labotary, with good intentions, but got busted and is now serving a long unfair jail sentence, but whilst there he is studying "the black letters of the law"! Check it out: A case that could change the history of drugs and humanity

Casey Hardison is serving 20 years in prison for the manufacture of LSD, 2CB and DMT. He has spent the last 7 years behind bars examining the legislation that was used to jail him. And has come up with findings powerful enough to win a hearing in the High Court later this year.

At his trial, Hardison defended himself on grounds of cognitive liberty i.e. that people should be allowed to alter their own states of consciousness provided they do not harm others when doing so. The judge sentenced him to 20 years in prison. The same week, a man convicted of manufacturing ricin with intent to kill was given 17 years.
Upon hearing Hardison’s cognitive liberty defence argument, Judge Anthony Niblett said to him ‘show me the black letters of the law’. As Hardison now says “That’s the most important thing that a judge ever said to anyone who was actually listening. I’ve had all the time in the world, because I’m in prison, to sit here and pick this thing apart. Word by word. I’ve gone over and over those black letters of the law. ”Hardison is perhaps oddly complimentary about the construction of the Act that apparently sealed his fate. “When I started reading the [Misuse of Drugs] Act I realised how beautifully constructed it was and that it could in fact regulate people with respect to any dangerous or otherwise harmful drug. It has a very intricate set of mechanisms that do not require Prohibition as it’s commonly known and thought of around the world. The Misuse of Drugs Act is very flexible”.

[read more of article @ link]
Now this is his way of challenging the irrational law, and I encourage it whole heartedly, and i also encourage all diverse ways, including the responsible underground network which will provide needed help for ALL people who seek out healing and spiritual fulfilment using psychedelics. I cannot emphasize responsible enough.

 

[zezt]

You said "any kind of clinical setting is the wrong setting. Period." Now you say that Grof is an exception

Michael, where are you, Cali?

I have to agree with tammuz, Stan Grof and all his disciples represent probaby less than one per cent of what passes for psychotherapy in this country today, and they aren't at all representative of a 'clinical setting' in this country today.

What does (and you know this) pass for psychotherapy today is what psyCHIATRISTS do, prescribe, prescribe prescribe.

Until the medical establishment can shake the reigns of economics, the lobby controls the accepted methods of 'treatment', and that treatment is as far from Grof, et al, as can be.

I really feel you're in a bit of an Ivory Tower here....

I also feel that for many people there is an ENORMOUS sense of hurt, and horror, from the massive abuse people have sufferered in the so-called 'care' of the psychiatric and psychotherapeutic community, and when people are going to open up like the way psychedelics open us up that there will be a lot of distrust from people regarding this profession--especially from poor people, but hah they wouldn't even get a look in would they? Again this is why I think that there HAS to be a grass roots radical revolution in psychedelic healing where we become ultimately independent of professionals.
I see the whole story of psychedelic healing and 'mental illness' utterly connected, because in both cases there has been a concerted effort by the State and its guards, the shrinks and psychologists, and police, etc to CONTROL consciousness!

I have read The Trials of the Visionary Mind by John Weir Perry, and how he provided a safe loving house for those deemed 'schizophrenic' and the choice of staff was not 'professionals' but people who had had deep experiences, including psychedelics experience, and really cared for people. So this is what it all boils down to---real deep care for people and community, and not wanting to control peoples consciousness and bodies.