On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:18 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true + discovered in the last 2
>> centuries by philosopher who is "not scientist" by John Clark's arbitrary
>> standards? Ok. Aldous Huxley, writer and philosophical mystic, not
>> "scientist" in your book,
> But I loved his book Brave New World, I first read it when I was about 10
> and reread it just a few months ago.
> > discovers and articulates to the broad public that mescaline is
>> effective at eliciting a subjective experiences that harmonize with the
>> following kinds of philosophies, observations, and mysticisms:
> People have been drinking alcohol for at least 7000 years because it
> alters their perception of the world, and they have been eating Peyote,
> who's active ingredient is mescaline, for almost as long. I like Aldous
> Huxley, and like his grandfather and brother even more, but I don't see how
> reporting on something that people have known for thousands of years is new
> or unexpected.
I am corrupt at times, but not this cheap John! Articulating
philosophically the overlap between a first person experience and mystic
traditions in "Doors of Perception" with "altered states of perception
throughout the ages" generally, is pure John Clark philosophy; a philosophy
in which 3,4,5-trimethoxyphenethylamine and ethanol are just "altering
user's perception of the world".
This implies a logic wherein a person getting shot, going to a store,
shooting heroin, enjoying a piece of cake and a cup of coffee, doing
nothing, pursuing a career, taking mescaline or having a beer are all just
simply "altering their perception". This is so vague and general it is
"philosophical" by your own standards: not deep, not clear, not precise,
and not true by any measure I can affirm. Children eating ice cream and
consuming mescaline are just doing the same thing, just "altering their
I await your explanation, even just on the level between alcohol and
mescaline, as they seem to a) be different chemically and b) elicit
different effect profiles both on metabolic levels and on subjective levels
Your equivalency statement is disputed by the Huxley in Doors, who outlines
the difference many times, like so:
*Ours is the age, among other things, of the automobile and of rocketing
population. Alcohol is incompatible with safety on the roads, and its
production, like that of tobacco, condemns to virtual sterility many
millions of acres of the most fertile soil. The problems raised by alcohol
and tobacco cannot, it goes without saying, be solved by prohibition. The
universal and ever-present urge to self-transcendence is not to be
abolished by slamming the currently popular Doors in the Wall. The only
reasonable policy is to open other, better doors in the hope of inducing
men and women to exchange their old bad habits for new and less harmful
ones. Some of these other, better doors will be social and technological in
nature, others religious or psychological, others dietetic, educational,
athletic. But the need for frequent chemical vacations from intolerable
selfhood and repulsive surroundings will undoubtedly remain. What is needed
is a new drug which will relieve and console our suffering species without
doing more harm in the long run than it does good in the short. Such a drug
must be potent in minute doses and synthesizable. If it does not possess
these qualities, its production, like that of wine, beer, spirits and
tobacco will interfere with the raising of indispensable food and fibers.
It must be less toxic than opium or cocaine, less likely to produce
undesirable social consequences than alcohol or the barbiturates, less
inimical to heart and lungs than the tars and nicotine of cigarettes. And,
on the positive side, it should produce changes in consciousness more
interesting, more intrinsically valuable than mere sedation or dreaminess,
delusions of omnipotence or release from inhibition.*
No chemist would buy this equivalency. No biologist either. Liberals would
disagree with you, even drug warrior fanatics disagree with you as well as
the philosopher/writer you love(d), who thinks this reductionism itself is
harmful and your equivalency false.
I have trouble seeing anybody, even fanatics of all kinds taking seriously
such an equivalency proposition. Scientific proof certainly fails to equate
the two. What is left is faith in John Clark. PGC
> John K Clark
>> *By 12:30 pm, a vase of flowers becomes the "miracle, moment by moment,
>> of naked existence". The experience, he asserts, is neither agreeable nor
>> disagreeable, but simply "is". He likens it to Meister
>> "istigheit" or "is-ness", and Plato <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato>'s
>> "Being" but not separated from "Becoming". He feels he understands the
>> Hindu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu> concept of
>> as well as the Zen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen>
>> koan<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan>that "the dharma body of the Buddha
>> is in the hedge" and Buddhist
>> suchness <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81/Dharmat%C4%81>.
>> In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an "I", but instead a
>> "not-I". Meaning and existence, pattern and colour become more significant
>> than spatial relationships and time. Duration is replaced by a perpetual
>> Mescaline had been discovered and isolated by Hefter, or your
>> understanding of "science" in 1898, but without the above link. This,
>> thousands of years later (at least 5600 to be precise) than Huichol and
>> other Native American tribes had intuitively and via bioassay verified the
>> assignment of 1person pov mystical experience through cactus.
>> Huxley verified that this class of subjective state is real, not merely
>> tribal superstition as "science" has held up to that point (and because of
>> prohibition/corruption/cowardice still does to large extent), gave a clear
>> dosage, and described the unexpected link between ingestion of some
>> molecule or plant and a set of mystic positions and experiences of various
>> cultures on the globe throughout the ages.
>> Aldous Huxley is not a personal hero of mine. But I do admire the step:
>> "YO wait just a second! This isn't just some provincial superstitious
>> nonsense. 400 milligrams and funky 1st person effect is real."
>> Your version of "Science" did not uncover the 1 person reality of such
>> states in any shape or form for the last few hundred years. It didn't even
>> do so in the last hundred years. It took at philosophical mystic to state
>> this connection. PGC
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.