Nick, Dave agrees with your first paragraph, with a minor nuance — when I said "we" are being elitist, the pronoun refers not to Nick but to those that Nick is channeling, i.e. the 'scientific community."
Now as to the second paragraph: I would never say that anyone should take psychedelics any more than I would say they should spend a year sailing on the Beagle. I am a puritan — probably everyone is, but with regard different things. I won't use recreational drugs (except alcohol to which I seem to be immune), I have never used heroin or opiates (both dangers and benefits are short term and disproportionate on the risk side). I conform to a set of behavioral rules but never assert that any of them are universal and should be observed by others. I do think you are making a fundamental error when you apply your puritan/Apollonian perspective to the psychedelic drug case. It is not a question of trading "short term _pleasure_" for "enjoyment in the long run." I am asserting that the "knowledge to be gained" is worth the "short term _effort_" required. Although there is certainly some kind of "pleasure/satisfaction" from spending long hours in the lab hunched over the microscope, or cleaning out the monkey cages that may translate the pleasure of standing on a stage in Stockholm sometime in the future. But, normally we see a spectrum of effort now - knowledge reward later. It is the latter I am asserting *vis-a-vis* hallucinogen use. I sure as hell hope that I am not an elitist. But I must confess that I am hyper-sensitive to elitism perceived in others. That sensitivity is deeply personal and pervades almost every aspect of life. It has been expressed on this list before - with regard politics, "Truth," and the current conversation about drugs. When I assert that "science is only useful for solving the easy problems," that is not elitism, but arrogance talking. I would say — an I am pretty sure you would disagree with me — that there are _no grounds that justify the privilege_ accorded to "science and scientific method." And, the corollary, there is no justification for science to dismiss a body of investigation simply because the subject matter or the approach to understanding runs contrary to orthodoxy. I believe you would disagree with me, because your personal experiences has demonstrated, to you, apparent justifications for your privileging of science. I began this conversation with a question: I have three or four "piles of experience/knowledge; A, B, C, and D. Can Peirce and his method help me find a way to integrate, make-sense-of-as-a-whole, all the piles? And the answer seems to be, no. No, because piles B,C, and D are irrelevant because they are not "science." This position raises my elitism hackles. I am becoming convinced that hermetic (and hermeneutic), mystical Taoist-Buddhist-Sufic, and psychedelic, approaches will provide means for such an integration and that "science" will be a special case much like Newtonian physics is a special case. davew On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, at 7:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Dear Phellow Phriammers, > > I want to thank you all for giving me a place to think “out loud” about these > matters. You see, as a behaviorist, out loud is the only way I know how to > think. > > I was struck by the relation between two words of critique employed in Glen’s > and Dave’s most recent posts: **Elitist! ** And **Puritan!** What is > remarkable to me is that they really do go together. Elitist points to my > privileging science as a method for determining the truth. Puritan points to > my reluctance to risk future satisfaction for present pleasure. What they > share is an [Apollonian?} focus on the long run. Really the two boil down to > the same thing … that the apparent non-randomness of past events is evidence > that in some sense, and to some degree, the future can be counted on, that a > careful plan will, *on average and with many exceptions, *lead to a better > result than a impulsive reaction. “Science” is just a name for practices of > knowledge-gathering that have a likelihood to produce expectations of > experience that will endure. So, my privileging of science, in general, and > expertise in particular is recursive: I believe in science because in my > enduring experience science produces expectations that endure the test of > time. I.e, scientific behavior is somewhat more likely to work out in the > long run than non scientific behavior, despite MANY exceptions. Puritan (sez > I) is just a name for somebody whose confidence that there IS a future is > sufficient to justify relinquishing short term pleasure for the enjoyment of > the long run. > > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this. That > ambiguity is what makes this argument so tantalizing for me. Dave MIGHT be > saying that the evidence suggests that to be consistent, I and all other > elitist puritans SHOULD be taking psychedelics because the evidence shows > that the knowledge gained thereby will pass the test of time and that the > long term satisfaction I will gain from having taken them will cancel out any > short term ill-ease that I experience. In short, are you sharing my elitist > puritanism but challenging my understanding of its implications, or are you > disagreeing with my elitist puritanism, and offering a different, > non-pragmaticist, approach to life. Or both? Or neither? > > I am sure you both will say that you have explained this to me a dozen time, > and why on earth would you repeat yourselves now. > > Perhaps you have brought me to a teachable moment? > > By the way, Dave. What probably would happen if you showed up at Friam under > the influence is that I would ask you to quarantine yourself for two weeks. > Last night AP revealed that the Trump administration had vetoed a CDC > recommendation that all elderly persons be discouraged from getting on > airplanes for the foreseeable future. Elderly, to my surprise, seems to mean > “over 60”. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
