a heroic dose is the main reason making me able to write this post in english
Without reading the article, the chances of capitalism and our benevolent pharma overlords not fucking it up and bringing it all in line with their usual shenanigans is slim to none. Like all the studying at Johns Hopkins rn with Roland Griffiths et al trying to resynthesize psilocybin with the aim of making a pill which gives you more or less the same results every time so that it's acceptable in the eyes of science completely defeats the whole lesson you're being taught by psychs. Certainty and safety is not what that shit is about. They've been used successfully in their natural state for thousands of years. The important thing is the prep and choice of moment. Ofc it can go wrong but most of the time that's due to negligence.
But science always knows best eh?
The noble Mexican population, having become Catholic under the merciless terror of the Spanish invaders, would show that they have remained “primitive” by not being terrified and horrified of death.
These peoples are, however, the heirs of a civilization misunderstood by Christians then and now and transmitted from ancient communism. Insipid modern individualism can only be flabbergasted by it, especially in this dull text where we read that graves are unmarked and that dishes are prepared even for those dead who no one remembers. True “unknown dead,” not because a sluggish, demagogic rhetoric says so but through the powerful simplicity of a life which is of the species and for the species, eternal like nature and not like a stupid swarm of souls wandering in the “beyond” for whose development the experiences of the dead, the living, and the as yet unborn are valid, in an historical sequence whose unfolding is not mourning but joy in all the moments of the material cycle.
Even in what they symbolize, these customs are nobler than ours. For example, these women who make themselves beautiful for the dead and not for the richest of the living, as in our mercantile society, this sewer in which we are immersed.
Have you got a link to anything about this? I'd be very surprised if anyone was trying to achieve something as obviously impossible as creating a psychedelic that reliably gives the same result each time.Like all the studying at Johns Hopkins rn with Roland Griffiths et al trying to resynthesize psilocybin with the aim of making a pill which gives you more or less the same results every time so that it's acceptable in the eyes of science completely defeats the whole lesson you're being taught by psychs.
Have you got a link to anything about this? I'd be very surprised if anyone was trying to achieve something as obviously impossible as creating a psychedelic that reliably gives the same result each time.
I got it from an interview he did with Jordan Peterson which @WashYourHands passed on to me. He basically says the main thing holding psychs back from going mainstream is repeatable results.
Long time since I watched it, so I don't know where it comes up, but it's in there. There's probably plenty of other interviews with him without Peterson, but you'll have to look for those yer sel.
also just about my earlier post my point wasn't to trash psychedelics, but that even the likes of Leary etc and all the 60s countercultural types, for all their gnattering on about indigenous use, completely subtracted it from religious and mystical knowledge which in any case was agricultural and not that of the accelerated instant gratification of industry. So where just as capitalist. Often it reads like the old guard moaning about a frankenstein's monster they themselves played a large part in forming.
nearly all people who speak positively about psychedelics are irresponsible in evangelising them, even for beneficial uses. If you want to give people an accurate picture you have to tell people what the experience is, which is essentially a temporary state of schizophrenia. sometimes this can still keep you cognitively aware of the external world, other times it cannot. But the fact that people don't mention this is irresponsible in the extreme. It also gets rid of the allure. A lot of drug culture is marketting pseudo-rebellion, nothing to do with quantity.
I'm not asking you to rebel by taking drugs, I'm asking you to rebel against drug culture. demystify it to bring out the true power of gnosis.
Institutionalising his research to broader programs at larger scales is extremely problematic
@thirdform maybe we could team up and you dole out the 10 grams of hash in yoghurt while I sell enlightenment for 5 bucks a hit from our giant teddy bear shaped kiosk at the next burning man?
Or they injected it with a bogus or otherwise misplaced mysticism, as in Wasson's famous article for Time about his experience of a Mazatec mushroom ceremony in Mexico, in which he wrote that the curandera, Maria Sabina, used the mushrooms to commune with her ancestors and tribal deities in an unbroken tradition stretching back to before the arrival of the Spanish, simply because this is what he'd expected. In fact the purpose of the ceremony was therapeutic, not religious, and Maria Sabina was a Catholic, as her community had been for centuries, so when she wanted to talk to God, she did so through the intercession of her parish priest, as any practicing Catholic would.also just about my earlier post my point wasn't to trash psychedelics, but that even the likes of Leary etc and all the 60s countercultural types, for all their gnattering on about indigenous use, completely subtracted it from religious and mystical knowledge which in any case was agricultural and not that of the accelerated instant gratification of industry.
I got it from an interview he did with Jordan Peterson which @WashYourHands passed on to me. He basically says the main thing holding psychs back from going mainstream is repeatable results.
Long time since I watched it, so I don't know where it comes up, but it's in there. There's probably plenty of other interviews with him without Peterson, but you'll have to look for those yer sel.
Are you sure it wasn't just something about putting psilocybin in pills?
Nope.
There was a bit in the interview where he said something along the lines of 'in the future we may see psilocybin as a primitive compound because we are working towards improving it.' Vis-a-vis making it predictable & repeatable, as the scientific method requires.
Iirc, there was also talk of one compound being worked on without all the mind bending and just having the anti-addiction effects.
This rubbed me the wrong way because it's fine as it is (imo!) and smacks of playing god. Especially when dealing with something as heavily mystical as psychedelics. Hence the tone of my post. But he's chosen that route because it's the only way psychs are ever going to get a foot in the door and be taken seriously after all the damage people like Leary did in the 60s by being so irresponsible with them. So for that, you have to doff yer cap to Griffiths. He's doing it the only way it can be done as the current system stands, but as @WashYourHands says, the suits are already rubbing their hands together. Which leaves us with a high chance of phyrric victory.
But, if the new compounds do actually work, then that will be somewhat of a win. Even if you are being dosed by Pfizer.
So yeah, let's see.