Re: our discussion about the possibilities of the body, and the role that one's culture/society plays in defining certain limitations for the body, emphasizing certain potentials and not recognizing other potentials. One culture, and even one historical period, may recognize cosmetic surgery as a potential for the body, another may recognize the ability to walk on hot coals, another may recognize the self-infliction of pain as a path to spiritual understanding. Charles Tart has some things to say about this in the context of assumptions.
I was thinking about the particular role psychedelic plants and compounds have played in modern American culture, mainly during the twentieth century, in this context. What ethnopharmacologists, anthropologists, and other researchers have found is that most cultures in the world outside of the modern West have some recognition of certain plants as "teachers," to be treated with the same respect and humility one would accord a wise man, a shaman, or a guru. This is a possibility that is recognized in those cultures, the idea that a student-teacher relationship can be conducted with a particular plant. But our culture for the most part does not have much experience cultivating this potential. There have been traditions, both in Europe and America, that emphasized the healing or instructive powers of nature, like the Romantics and the Transcendentalists. And there has certainly been a history of ingesting certain plants/plant products for artistic inspiration (cannabis, opium, etc.), recreation (alcohol), or even for increased production, especially in the post-industrial age (coffee). Of course there are other relationships and dimensions with these drugs, these are just a few.
But the plant as teacher, ingested teacher, particularly for the purposes of spiritual or religious understanding, is not as common in our culture. So it seems like a good idea to turn to these other cultures, who have been cultivating this particular relationship for a long time--creating ritual settings, educating the members of the culture as to the safe, beneficial use of the plant(s)--to learn from them. It's another example of the fact that different assumptions lead to different conclusions: what is the end result of assuming that if I ingest a particular plant, I can learn certain things, that I can follow a specific path with this specific relationship? Like I mentioned, it never occurred to me, before I was exposed to certain ideas from India, "how can I train my own body to control the 'involuntary' aspects of my breathing?" Similarly, I never assumed, as a child, that a plant could be a teacher--not just on the level of communing with nature, but by actually introducing a substance into my body.
And on the topic of the body and its potentials, I see some similarities between certain drugs, like the psychedelics, and sex: easy to misuse or abuse, potentially dangerous, managed/regulated/controlled in different ways in different parts of the world, but also potential teachers and sources of profundity. Both also have a multifaceted relationship with different religious systems and approaches to spirituality, ranging from outright damnation to complete abstinence to consecrated ritual use.
Some resources I have found helpful:
Entheogen: Awakening the Divine Within (documentary, 2011)
DMT: The Spirit Molecule (documentary, 2010)--the YouTube channel for the documentary has full interviews with several interesting people in this field
Council on Spiritual Practices' section on entheogens
This book
Dale Pendell's three books, particularly Pharmako/gnosis
Alan Watts' Joyous Cosmology
(J)
Initial response: You're a monster! Your sentence, "some resources I have found helpful" sounds like you're saying, oh, these little things I found on the side of the road helped me out a little. Two 60 min. documentaries, a whole section of a book, and three other books! Haha.. Give me time to respond to this. I'll want to watch/read some of what you suggested, read further into the Don Juan book, and potentially Doors of Perception could help as well.
ReplyDelete(H)
Haha! I've had the past few months to look into these matters, and I've only read certain sections in the Pendell books. There's plenty of time! And my thoughts on the subject continue to change.
ReplyDelete(J)
After I thought a little more, I have something more to add, which I've gathered from reading The Teachings of Don Juan.
ReplyDeleteWhile using "psychedelics" as a means of exploration is a valid point, and indeed an enticing one, do you think that by ingesting/taking these plants is taking them out of cultural context? I ask because you point this out a defining point, that we can take "psychedelics" and use them as a teacher, rather than a drug (read: our (American) culture doesn't view them as a teacher and other cultures do); however there is a entire worldview that plays into learning (e.g. knowledge) from the plant. There are intricate rituals and rules that *must* be followed for specific types of knowledge to be gained from the plant, if in fact we are concerned about the cultural significance. These rules can also help protect an individual from fatal, or scarring occurrences.
(H)
I do think that when someone, like an American, proposes to ingest a psychedelic substance he is in some ways operating within a culture that doesn't provide him with the ritual context that other cultures provide their members, like the peyote cults, or Amazonian use of ayahuasca, or Mazatec use of salvia and mushrooms. But I don't think that precludes the learning or growth that the various substances can catalyze. For example, LSD doesn't have a traditional cultural context because it wasn't synthesized until 1938. But that didn't stop, and hasn't stopped, the efforts of those who try to create a safe, beneficial, and often therapeutic framework for taking that specific drug (see the work of Stanislav Grof and James Fadiman in particular). Same goes for MDMA (synthesized in the early twentieth century and then re-"discovered" in the 1970s), the synthetic psychedelics developed by Alexander Shulgin, and new substances that are being created today. Now, sometimes the advocates of psychedelics as a particular approach to one's inner growth emphasize ritual setting. I think that ritual doesn't necessarily have to involve an entire culture, or even any other person but oneself. Certainly there are rules that must be followed, as regards safety, the famous "set and setting" first introduced by Leary and his associates. But one can create one's own rituals, in my opinion. Part of the function of a ritual context within a traditional culture was to educate the initiate, the user of the drug, as to how to navigate the experience. This education is available to anyone nowadays, via websites like Erowid, books, and people who are experienced in these ways.
ReplyDeleteOf course, as you point out, the rules of the rituals are often very intricate and precise. And it seems that just as it is difficult for a typical Westerner to study an intensive, culture-bound system like raja yoga, it may be difficult for that same person to enter another culture and be able to perform a certain ritual. Cultures have many complex structures, often ones we are not familiar with, and it often takes time to assimilate oneself into a different set of structures. But as you know, many "outsiders" still derive enormous benefit from taking ayahuasca with a traditional shaman, entering into a specific, codified ritual context. But again, new contexts can and are being created, and it is not outside one's power, armed with proper education and preparation, to create one's own ritual.
The cultural or ethnological significance of psychedelic substances is one side of the story, but also, especially in our time when much more of the world is connected, information-wise, the boundaries of "culture" are changing. And there are so many different cultures within America itself. One could point to things like Burning Man as icons of a "psychedelic culture," which does exist both within America and outside of it, and which seeks to integrate the lessons learned from the hippies' initial attempts at creating a genuine context within America for psychedelic exploration, experimentation, research, etc. The re-opening up of scientific research beginning in the 1990s is a sign that America is ready to face the challenge of integrating these powerful/dangerous potentials.
(J)
Also, the development and practice of psychedelic psychotherapy, both with LSD in the 1960s and MDMA in the 1980s before the substances were made illegal, I would argue is a form of "Western" ritual. Particularly in the hands of responsible, experienced (most psychedelic therapists had to have training with the substances themselves), the environment created in the therapist's office was often very safe. And the therapist appointment already has some ritual aspects (particular structuring of time, space, relationship, emotion, etc.), so this could provide much of the structure that a ritual in a traditional culture provides. Psychotherapy is now accepted in many parts of American society, so this is a promising area for the ritual use of psychedelics.
ReplyDeleteIt seems from your comments, the plants have a particular niche in American culture, which is "inner growth" (or "personal exploration" which is closely associated with inner growth).
ReplyDeleteHowever, what does "inner growth" mean? Are plants necessary for inner growth? What are we growing towards?
(H)
These are great questions!
ReplyDeleteAt a general level, plants are not necessary for inner growth--neither are most methods and technologies associated with such growth--meditation, prayer, psychotherapy, yoga, asceticism. But it is difficult to generalize about people's personal experiences. One person may claim that it was "necessary" for them to work with a psychotherapist to resolve years of resentment that were shutting her off from intimate relationships. It is difficult to argue whether it was "necessary" for her or not. At some point, it is a matter of whether or not the tool got the job done, whatever that job may be.
As for "inner growth" itself, I take it to mean this: "inner" refers to the process of working with and changing one's own beliefs, emotions, judgments, defenses, assumptions in order to "grow" towards whatever goals one sets for oneself. Take the goal of becoming a more morally mature or responsible person, a goal many people share. The inner aspect of this growth could take any form, but it could be concerned with changing certain emotions that hinder my moral behavior, or prejudices that lead me to treat certain people with less dignity than others. So while the goal itself could be labeled "outer," involving my relationships with the people around me, there are "inner" processes associated with it. No one can change my prejudices but myself--though I can be assisted by other people, the change has to be my decision. This what I mean by "inner."
People have different goals they want to grow towards, and the inner aspect of this growth varies accordingly. Some want to be more fair and just, others want to realize their creativity, others want to improve their intimate relationships, others want to alter the beliefs or habits or defenses that they see as damaging such relationships, others want to lead more meaningful lives.
As to what we are growing towards, that is something I think about
quite a lot, but have no answer for. Is there a common goal for all people? For all cultures? For all relationships? Is it peace, freedom maybe?
Is a child growing towards the same things as an elderly man?
What is the relationship between growth and knowledge? Between growth and wisdom? Happiness? Are we all trying to just LIVE better? Is there a point, an age, where we stop growing? If so, is that when we begin a descent towards death?
What are the relationships between moral growth, spiritual growth,
creative growth, cognitive growth, intellectual growth, psychosexual growth, "fitness" growth?
(J)
Psychedelics have other uses besides working with one's beliefs, emotions, defenses, etc. Artistic and philosophical inspiration. Religious or devotional expression and emotion. Deepening of intimacy between friends and lovers. As aids to scientific investigation of the brain and the mind. Communion with nature. Even communion with larger communities (some mushroom rituals, for instance). Play, recreation, and fun. None of which are strictly concerned with growth or development.
ReplyDeleteOf course, all of these potential sources of meaning in one's life can be tapped and developed without ever going near a psychedelic; but again, that does not preclude the powerful role the substances can play. Biochemist Alexander Shulgin, who re-"discovered" MDMA in the 1970s along with developing dozens of new psychedelic, empathogenic, and entactogenic ("touching within") substances, said of his first experience with mescaline that it became clear to him that the complex experience could not be said to have been contained in the nondescript white powder. Instead, the drug acted as a catalyst (spoken like a true chemist) to encourage certain potentials that were already within him. He is correct, in my
estimation--the ability to create, to achieve intimacy in relationships, to commune with God and nature, to experience ecstasy is a potential already within us.
One can say that a particular substance (or another altered state like dreaming, hypnotic states, or meditative states) can enable someone to tap a certain potential, but that the substance need be dropped in order to develop that potential. This is true in many cases, but I think the matter is more complex. The variety of relationships between people and various substances is vast. The idea of "graduation" is useful, but people progress at different speeds. How do you know when it is time to graduate?
But I don't want to present a one-sided account. The risks and dangers are real: psychosis, activation of latent mental illnesses like schizophrenia, death in higher doses with certain substances. And, of course, legal consequences associated with certain substances.
(J)