why do you want psychedelics to remain pure so much?
don't tell me you judge people who have imbibed fifferently to those who have? Also how is it playing God when intoxication for the sake of intoxication is discouraged in most religions?
Acid is also a great psychedelic. Idk if you could class that as natural even though it comes from ergot. But I'm talking about shrooms which are just fine and have been just fine for millions of people for millenia. Science trying to improve nature always feels like another step towards the dystopias we've been warned about in sci fi for as long as it's existed. When they get into the wrong hands etc.
this kind of paranoiac attitude makes a far greater case for teetotalism than I ever could.
And no, Mckenna was just an obnoxious windbag. Hate to say it but Mussolini actually had brains compared to him.
But that's just it. Psychs are not just for the sake of intoxication. Not in my book, at least.
Right. Because big pharma are all about the people.
if you guys are actually serious of trying to make a case for the knowledge that gnostic experiences facilitated by psychedelics can provide might i recommend the non-psychedelic roots for getting there and understanding what you're doing.
Ibn Arabi is one of the most inventive and prolific writers of the Islamic tradition, with a very large number of books and treatise attributed to him.ibnarabisociety.org
Sorry dawg but the way you consume psychedelics for short cuts to mystical knowledge is peak intoxication.
Their medicinal use is far more anti-intoxicant, so you end up bigging up the guy you intend to lambaste.
The fact that you use the term big pharma like some david icke conspiracy theory is revealing. again, making a case for radical sobriety.
Also 'the people' does not exist, so I can't have this debate until you're more exact with what you mean by this concept.