/lit/ - Literature

>>16189621
terence mckenna is a typical "psychonaut" who believes that there is some kind of knowledge-source in psychedelics that is irrespective of what the subject already knows or the fact of the experience. it's nonsense. psychedelics only draw upon what is already available in the mind, they aren't a communique from the gods or a way of entering a new plane (especially when removed from their ethnocultural context). but if you're a westerner from an effectively atheistic culture it's the closest you can come to what seems to be a transcendent religious experience. his faux intellectualism is a reverse aestheticization of rave/LSD culture lending perceived academic authority to a youth subculture.

this isn't to say that psychs aren't worth exploration but the best psychedelic authors realised the journey is inward and not outward.

>>16189732
based take

>>16189756
Watts' philosophy is a justification of a naturalistic hedonism, however refined. It exploits the doctrines of numerous religions to do this, denying them when he sees fit, judging everything by his own hedonistic standards. This is dishonest. If he wishes to cite religious doctrines, he should take them in context and should take all of them. By picking and choosing he makes it obvious that he does not take them seriously; they are toys for him, for he is God. He joins the ranks of pseud-religious preachers.

>>16189787
ok but he was right about psychedelic use.

>>16189732
>irrespective of what the subject already knows
Does not necessarily equate to the claim that psychedelics do not generate otherwise unreachable modes of being, and acquire esoteric knowledge.

As you admit there is so much to explore within, and who within the psychedelic circles would argue otherwise?
To repeat my point, there are some modes of thinking and knowledge you cannot reach without the help of psychedelics. Literally unlocks your brain, in reductive terms.

>>16189787
it's impossible to take them in context when presenting them to a completely alien cultural audience for they don't possess the conditions that lead to those insights in the first place. i think what watts attempted to do was construct a personal self-help philosophy by looking for consistent truths among the religions he studied and then contextualizing it for westerners. it's not taking them less seriously but it is stripping them of divine authority.

>>16189621
I've listened to McKenna talks and it sounds like gibberish and empty platitudes, his groupies seem pretty zombiefied too.

Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell by Huxley might be more interesting and valuable. I haven't read them yet but the synopsis' on Wikipedia sound great.

Plus Huxley was a smart cultured writer not just some dumb hippy.

>By 12:30pm, 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 toMeister Eckhart's "istigheit" or "is-ness", andPlato's "Being" but not separated from "Becoming". He feels he understands theHinduconcept ofSatchitananda, as well as theZenkoanthat, "the dharma body of the Buddha is in the hedge" and Buddhistsuchness. 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 present.[38

>Reflecting on the experience afterwards, Huxley finds himself in agreement with philosopherC. D. Broadthat to enable us to live, the brain and nervous system eliminate unessential information from the totality of the 'Mind at Large'.[39]

Pihkal a chemical live story by the chemist Dr. Alexander Shulgin and his wife might interest you too.

OP here
what i disliked about the book was mainly that its overrated boring rambling with some marxist ideas instead of learning and actually reading something interesting about psychedelics
>>16189732
i dont mind the idea that psychedelics might be something deeper than just molecules causing psychosis and im not going to pretend like i know enough to be able to tell what psychedelics exactly are because nobody currently has figured it out but i just wanted a interesting book that might either teach me something about psychedelics in an interesting way or introduce me to some cool ideas to think about

>>16189806
the same things you consider esoteric knowledge or an unreachable mode of being can just as easily be medicalised as inebriation or episodes of psychosis. you've primed yourself to expect those things and get those things as a result.

>>16189854
>I haven't read them yet but the synopsis' on Wikipedia sound great.
i don't trust Wikipedia and i'm not going to fall for hype again like i did with this disappointing garbage

anyone read this?

>>16189868
i think the psyche and the deeper you look into the field of psychology the more you realize just how complex the human psyche is
so i wouldn't be so arrogant and just say that psychedelic experiences are just episodes of psychosis
i think its also all relative to perspective

>>16189894
the point is that self-styled "gurus" like mckenna or shamans or the psychedelic aesthetic stand more in the way of truly understanding these things than even the prohibition of the substances themselves.

>>16189868
It might prime, but I myself did not do it.
What do you think happens when you take LSD? You see colors? Elephants in your room? It is abslutely not what you would see on hollywood or most anywhere else for that matter. It is very thoughtform and invitingly awakening. And even something as great as LSD is still just one thing, something DMT is completely earth-shattering.

You are either a disillusioned past user, who somehow cannot reap the benefit because of negative experiences, someone who has been given heavy anti-psychiatric treatment, or someone who is oblivious to the effects of psychedelics making judgements from afar.

Sadie Plant wrote one. Anyone read it?

>>16189917
i've taken LSD in the past and the one thing that struck me the most was it's plasticity to my thought process. if i primed myself the day before leading up to the trip i could vastly influence the outcome.

>>16189875
They are short and Huxley was a respected writer and thinker rather than a hippie grifter. You can likely find them for free online.

Up to you but if I wanted to read about the implications of psychedelics I'd start with those.

>>16189997
Well that is great but I do not quite understand how it contradicts my original claim. It might simply be that the effects are not quite universal.

My suggestion is simply this. You can gain very much from your would be directions and meditations. In my case there was no need for these things, again it simply could be that things are not universal with psychedelics, but if you are able to look past the superficial and explore the cerebral, it is extremely rewarding. That is simply what I have found to be true.

What you first said was accusatory, if I'm not reading things incorrectly. My claim is that the things you can reach with "priming" are real, and otherwise unreachable without the psychedelic.

>>16189732
whew, i like this! based

>>16189732
Not only is the OP a faggot, but so, as it would seem in this particular case, are (you). Such debased fellows as yourselves are certainly un-initiated and utterly unprepared to recieve the ancient rites of philosophy that Terence has carefully excavated by means of letters. So kindly, and with all due respect, please take your useless shitposts and shove them back up inside of those plump bottoms from whence they came.

Good day to you sirs.

>>16189864
In all seriousness, Terence's revelation about the theoretical role of hallucinogens in the evolutionary process are probably the most significant thing to happen within the realm of science since it's original conception and formulation. I have read Food of the Gods multiple times, and just reading 10 pages isn't going to get you anywhere, if you genuinely want to learn, then commit yourself to fully understanding his ideas, which you yourself now admit that you either are unwilling to understand, or are utterly incapable of understanding. Whatever the case may be, if you want to learn, you can, but getting used to Terence's patterns of thought will take a philosopher's patience and commitment.

>>16189621
this is your brain on drugs. lmao! surprise it's shit

There is no good book on psychedelics because the psychedelic experience is deeply personal and ineffable.

The psychedelic.experience will be for you whatever you (subconsciously) want it to be.

>>16191660
well fanboy i never complained about that aspect of the book i just didnt want to listen to his stupid personal views and marxist views on what an utopian society should look like and boringly written tryhard wannabe intellectual "smart looking language"

>>16191698
if he presented his ideas in a more interesting way instead of his try hard "sound smart" language his book does the opposite of what a nonfiction book is suppose to do its boring instead of sparking more curiosity and also he just sprinkles his marxist views into his ramblings thats not the reason i wanted to read it i wanted to learn history of psychedelics and learn some crazy things about psychedelics
i will read the book regardless to see how it develops and hope it gets better but the beginning has truly discouraged me from reading till end

>>16189621
Why do people treat their psychedelic experiences more seriously than they would a dream? You can gain insight from either but they should only serve as a jumping board to provoke ideas. You're not actually or metaphorically meeting God and elf aliens when you're tripping balls.

>>16192881
we dont even know what god is

>>16189621
mckenna is 1/3 genuine insight and 2/3 hippie bullshit, your job is to sift

>>16190003
>huxley wasn't a hippie grifter
uhhhhhhhhhhh

>>16192881
do you not treat your dreams seriously?

>>16189732
McKenna got some things wrong (TimeWave), and his idea that there's an alien consciousness within the mushroom is the wrong metaphor to use, for reasons you point out, and worse still if we take him literally. I still find his "reality is language" spiel good to think with sometimes.
>>16189787
It doesn't sound to me like you've described Watts at all (>>16189830 at least seems to understand the sorts of things he actually said). "Naturalistic hedonism" is a weird thing to have on your radar in the first place, much less to accuse particular philosophies of justifying. In Watts' case, I don't see it. If I had to guess, you're probably a monotheist upset that Watts was able to articulate a coherent philosophy that dispenses with the unnecessary theological baggage.