the sinister 'k'?

[David Orange]

ketamine is a chemical not covered in BOtH, and i don't believe there's been much mention of it on these boards...so here goes.

Marcia Moore passed away in a k-related death, as did D.M. Turner. John Lilly, perhaps its most famous proselytizer, lived to a ripe old age, but did not always seem to be healthily grounded in reality.

There is an article on erowid about how k, dxm, & pcp can supposedly cause brain damage even when used in limited fashion. D.M. Turner was told by a tryptamine entity something to the effect that ketamine was a frankenstein molecule which did not obey the karmic laws. In the book "Apocalypse Culture", there is an eerie chapter on ketamine that suggests that the entities encountered on high dose k trips often are spirits of the dead, who may possibly "inadvertently pull you too close", resulting in one becoming a permanent resident of their realm. Many users have attested to its extremely seductive, or to use a stronger term, addictive properties. All in all, the story of k does not seem like a very pretty one. But still, the tales told by those who explored it deeply...so fascinating...matched only by salvinorin a, and dmt and it's chemical cousins in its intensity.

Comments? Has anyone read "Journeys Into the Bright World?"...thoughts about Lilly's k-vision of a future where water-based life forms are eliminated by "solid state entities"?
is there a future for this compound, either in a therapeutic milieu, or as part of the investigative arsenal of serious independent psychonauts?

[sidecross]

Ketamine was a useful chemical agent for combat medics when dealing with catastrophic injury. Its first noticeable effect was a kind of "who cares" influence. Obviously this would be appreciated if your legs were blown off.

McKenna did not like this disassociation effect, and was reason enough for him to avoid it.

I have not ever used it.

[neuroflux]

KETAMINE: DREAMS AND REALITIES (http://www.maps.org/kdreams/) by Karl Jansen, M.D., Ph.D. is a fascinating and informative read on ketamine.

What I find most fascinating in this book is the description of the effects of ketamine in the brain. It seems there is a mechanism that kicks into operation when your brain is deprived of oxygen which protects your neurons from damage. This chemical mechanism seems to cause a lot of the experienced characteristics of the near death experience (which is not to say that the NDE is not "real" but nevertheless, there are neurochemical events unfolding in association with the NDE). Ketamine, it turns out, directly stimulates this mechanism. In other words, ketamine, at least at a certain dosage level, appears to induce an actual near death experience. The book also refers to K being used in "death-rebirth" therapy in some parts of the world, and it is being used in Russia to treat heroin and alchohol addiction.

I only tried K one time, and only had a threshold experience; I didn't go fully into the ketamine realm, but retained some awareness of my body and the room I was in. Nevertheless, the experience was fascinating. I felt myself detaching from my body and entering a fluid, dreamlike environment. It felt very cosy, like going home in a way. I had been afraid of it before I tried it, but as I was flowing into the experience I thought, "There's nothing to be afraid of here." I also thought, "If this is what death is like - and I wouldn't be surprised - then it's not bad at all!"

Jansen also notes that ibogaine at high doses seems to have some effects which are similar to ketamine. I've only tried ibogaine once (so far) at a moderate 5mg/kg. dose, but interestingly, the only drug that it reminded me of at all was ketamine. And both of those substances reminded me of falling asleep and dreaming...

[Magnus_Grey]

Latest developments in DXM/ketamine brain related dammage.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_health2.shtml

[David Orange]

thanks for pointing out that article, Magnus. I should have made a point of being more up-to-date with my 'research'. ;)

i am far from an expert in this area, but judging from that article, i guess it's safe to say that caution is still in order...i just keep thinking of this interview with john lilly that i read (i'll try to dig up the link if anyone's interested)...he didn't exactly seem entirely lucid. it seems he never published any of the books he had mentioned that he was working on, either, which leads me to wonder if he was just spending all his time in the proverbial k-hole...obviously, he's a rather extreme case, though, in terms of frequency and duration of useage.

[Walkaway]

---
> Ketamine was a useful chemical agent
> for combat medics when dealing with
> catastrophic injury.
---
Ketamine is still a medically useful compound, in a number of different indications, and used as such all over the world, including the United States.
---
> McKenna did not like this disassociation
> effect, and was reason enough for him
> to avoid it.
---
My impression of Terence McKenna's relationship to ketamine is that he detested it because it was the only drug that ever shut him up.
---
> I have not ever used it.
---
I'd say that you're missing out, though I like DXM better.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[Walkaway]

---
> Marcia Moore passed away in a k-related
> death, as did D.M. Turner.
---
There have been numerous LSD-related deaths, as well as deaths related to use of mescaline, peyote, and other psychedelics (for purposes of space, we won't be discussing the extremely toxic drug ibogaine in this post).
---
> John Lilly, perhaps its most famous
> proselytizer, lived to a ripe old age,
> but did not always seem to be
> healthily grounded in reality.
---
In all of his interviews, he seemed remarkably lucid, if somewhat weird. Karl Jansen (who interviewd Lilly shortly prior to his non ketamine related death) stated that Lilly seemed conspiciously intelligent and not brain damage, able to quote at length from his books and the books of others. Lilly admitted freely (and proudly) to being "weird as hell," but from his autiobiographical accounts, seems to have been "weird as hell" for many years prior to his ketamine experimentation. Finally, I'm not sure how you qualify him as a proselytizer, as he never attempted to encourage mass abuse of ketamine, so far as I am aware.
---
> There is an article on erowid about how
> k, dxm, & pcp can supposedly cause brain
> damage even when used in limited fashion.
---
I recommend my own article on the subject, also available at Erowid. It is my suspicion that persons using ketamine or DXM moderately have a better chance of dying in traffic than of developing "Olney's Lesions."
---
> D.M. Turner was told by a tryptamine
> entity something to the effect that
> ketamine was a frankenstein molecule
> which did not obey the karmic laws.
---
I feel that this is more rationally interpreted as a messsage from Mr. Turner's psyche relating to his own (admittedly troubled) personal relationship with the drug ketamine than a reflection of the intrinsic nature of the drug.
---
> In the book "Apocalypse Culture", there
> is an eerie chapter on ketamine that
> suggests that the entities encountered
> on high dose k trips often are spirits
> of the dead, who may possibly
> "inadvertently pull you too close",
> resulting in one becoming a permanent
> resident of their realm.
---
That sounds like mildly interesting stoned speculation, and not much more.
---
> Many users have attested to its
> extremely seductive, or to use a
> stronger term, addictive properties.
---
People repeat experiences that they like. Many people find ketamine and other dissociatives to be absolutely horrible highs that they cannot imagine repeating. For these people, the same experience that is "addictive" for others is "anti-addictive." I would tend to conclude that since physiological dependence to ketamine and dextromethorphan has not been demonstrated, persons abusing high quantities of them simply really, really like them. Similar behavior has been observed with other psychedelic drugs. For instance, Ram Dass admitted to using LSD continuously for two weeks, and to taking ascending doses to outrun the tolerance.
---
> All in all, the story of k does not seem
> like a very pretty one.
---
The construction it has been given in popular culture lends it these associations. Intrinsically, the chemical is simply a tool in the hands of the explorer.
---
> But still, the tales told by those who
> explored it deeply...so fascinating...
> matched only by salvinorin a, and dmt
> and it's chemical cousins in its
> intensity.
---
Well, as I said, I prefer DXM to ketamine, but yeah, I think both are quite profound.
---
> Comments?
---
Plenty. See above. smile.gif
---
> Has anyone read "Journeys Into the
> Bright World?"
---
I've read parts of it, and I keep meaning to read the whole thing. Honestly, it seems like standard psychedelic fare for the most part.
---
> ...thoughts about Lilly's k-vision of
> a future where water-based life forms
> are eliminated by "solid state entities"?
---
Sounds like a very faithful reflection of the concerns of the collective unconscious of his time with the concerns of the demands of mechanization versus the demands of ecology.
---
> is there a future for this compound
---
Most definitely, though I tend to prefer DXM in most situations.
---
> either in a therapeutic milieu
---
I think that in many instances ketamine and DXM can function as vastly superior 'metaprogramming' tools than psychedelics such as LSD or psiloc(yb)in, so I think that they could be useful adjuncts to programs for changing specific behaviors. I also think that both demonstrate a great deal of potential in the treatment of physiological and psychological drug dependence. Both also show a great deal of promise in treating the fear of death (as do DMT and 5-MeO-DMT).
---
> or as part of the investigative arsenal
> of serious independent psychonauts?
---
Dissociatives are among my favorite 'psychedelic' compounds. I have had quite a bit of experience with them in the forms of DXM, K, and nitrous oxide. (if one decides not to classify alcohol as a dissociative) Of these three, I would have to say that DXM is my 'favorite,' with K running a close second. (I am aware that this preference makes me a distinct minority) I find DXM to be quite a bit 'warmer' and less 'empty' than K (especially at the lower doses; with DXM, lower doses are still quite noticeably psychedelic, while with K lower doses have, for me, tended to result in a very uninteresting drunken feeling with some occasional visuals - I would rather eat any amount of DXM than insufflate any amount of ketamine), with the advantage that I don't have to shoot DXM for what I consider to be its most interesting effects. I find that DXM affects my sense of self more strongly than K, is more visually active, and promotes more fluid associations and more interesting thought content at doses below fully dissociative levels. DXM also lasts substantially longer, which many would consider a downside, but which, in some contexts, I find quite definitely preferable. The following are some of the qualities of my DXM experiences which make the drug desirable (for me):
---
*sense of unusual clarity of thought
*sense of unusual honesty, both with self
and with others
*sense of profound disconnection between
my mind and my body
*macroscopia/microscopia ('Alice-in-Wonderland'
effects of objects, including oneself,
growing and shrinking)
*lucid recall of long-forgotten memories
*loose (I prefer 'promiscuous') associations
between thoughts, which can make for mighty
interesting written material (some of it
crap, but a lot of it not - just as with
'sober' thought)
*brilliant kaleidoscopic patterning both
with eyes open and eyes closed
*altered perceptual field (objects seem
to 'glow' from within themselves,
tje Huxleyian 'isness,' etc.,)
*profound euphoria
*'religious' experiences (contact with
god/s, near-death experiences, etc.,)
*feeling of complete distance between
myself and the world
*paradoxical sense of complete immersion
in the world and its activities ('we're
all flowers on the tree of life')
*intuitive understanding of difficult
concepts from physics and mathematics
---
I find DXM far more empowering and practically useful than many far more "chic" psychedelic compounds, such as AMT, 2C-T-7, MDA, MDMA, psiloc(yb)in, and others. Your mileage may vary. If abused, these compounds can cause unpleasant psychological side-effects. These clear within a few months of the cessation of use (for many, within weeks).
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[ September 24, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Walkaway ]

[David Orange]

"My impression of Terence McKenna's relationship to ketamine is that he detested it because it was the only drug that ever shut him up."

:D heh-heh...actually, isn't that what someone said about when alan watts tried dmt; it was the only time anyone ever saw him rendered speechless by something? the mckenna comment re k that i remember reading is that he complained that it what was like walking into an empty, newly built office building; kind of "cold" and spooky-- he contrasted it with drugs like psilocybin which he thought had a deep morphogenetic field built up from centuries of human use. but i guess maybe you have to buy into the morphogenetic field idea to go with that objection.

>Marcia Moore passed away in a k-related
> death, as did D.M. Turner.
---
"There have been numerous LSD-related deaths, as well as deaths related to use of mescaline, peyote, and other psychedelics (for purposes of space, we won't be discussing the extremely toxic drug ibogaine in this post)."

lsd-related deaths? really?

i just find it disturbing, in the case of k...marcia moore was the first person to write a book about ketamine, and turner was a pretty famous psychonaut. to me that would be the equivalent of say, ken kesey dying from lsd, and then the same happening to ralph mentzner a few years later. yes, there have been deaths associated with other psychedelics, but no others that come to mind involving famous users. that two publically well-known users of k died k-related deaths seems if not statistically, then at least symbolically important. to me, it's an eerie coincidence, especially considered in light of turner's ominous-sounding "frankenstein molecule" comment. therapeutic use is one thing, but here is my admittedly wild speculation: perhaps on some metaphysical level, it is unwise or dangerous for humans to engage in prolonged deep exploration of the k realms. (please feel free to tear me apart on that one) ;)

"In all of his interviews, he seemed remarkably lucid, if somewhat weird. Karl Jansen (who interviewd Lilly shortly prior to his non ketamine related death) stated that Lilly seemed conspiciously intelligent and not brain damage, able to quote at length from his books and the books of others. Lilly admitted freely (and proudly) to being "weird as hell," but from his autiobiographical accounts, seems to have been "weird as hell" for many years prior to his ketamine experimentation. Finally, I'm not sure how you qualify him as a proselytizer, as he never attempted to encourage mass abuse of ketamine, so far as I am aware."

here is one interview i was thinking of:
http://www.levity.com/mavericks/lilly2.htm

lucid, yes, i guess...but, again, at the risk of sounding like some sort of psychic fascist, i think that it might be unpleasant to spend significant amounts of time around someone who is not particularly well-grounded in (consensus? ;) ) reality...as this interview gives me the impression of lilly's overall state. a brief excerpt:

"RMN: How do you define addiction and how do you avoid falling into the trap of misusing the chemicals you take?

JOHN: Let's see. There's drug use, drug over-use, drug abuse, drug hypo-use and on and on. There is a set of chemicals that if you take them and you don't exercise and you don't cat right, you go downhill. When you go downhill you have to take more of that chemical to substitute for the food and stuff. But if you are taken off that chemical without the proper stimulus you get grand mal seizures or something. That's the old-fashioned description of addiction.

What I say is, you take certain chemicals and change the chemical con~iguration in your brain and body. This is a very interesting process and if you stay interested and look after yourself then you can take cocaine or heroin or any of those things. Physical exercise is absolutely essential to get good changes of conscious states. If you're in good physical condition you can experience a hell of a lot. If you lose interest then you go downhill and wind up in Harlem or something.

RMN: What about people who have developed a powerful physical and mental addiction, for example, to crack and cocaine, in some cases: even killing or stealing in order to fulfill their craving for the drugs.

JOHN: They'll kill and steal without the drugs, they live that way. The drug just gives them an excuse to do it. Read Freud on cocaine. He really knew what cocaine did but he was never able to say it in the presence of the psychoanalytic people. Psychoanalysis is all based on his cocaine experiences, every bit of it."

wha? what's with the bit about harlem? and coke is some magic drug which was responsible for freud's development of psychoanalysis? i find him to be very glib and self-righteous in the interview...and manically leaping about from one story/half-baked idea to the next, often with very tenuous connections...flaky.

from the autobiographical accounts that i remember, i don't remember him being "weird as hell" prior to his heavy k use. i recall that he was a pretty straight-laced guy, roman catholic, married, cal tech scientist and all that...i don't expect, nor am i asking that people who take lots of psychedelics to sound like investment bankers; but to give an example, someone like mckenna, who took a ton of drugs and spoke on very far-out subjects, always seemed thoroughly grounded and coherent.

i agree i shouldn't have used the word "proselytizer", but i don't think it's entirely unfair to say that he was a popularizer ...though i guess he did decline to name "ketamine" outright in his early works and interviews, referring to it only by the name "vitamin k".

> In the book "Apocalypse Culture", there
> is an eerie chapter on ketamine that
> suggests that the entities encountered
> on high dose k trips often are spirits
> of the dead, who may possibly
> "inadvertently pull you too close",
> resulting in one becoming a permanent
> resident of their realm.
---
"That sounds like mildly interesting stoned speculation, and not much more."

i tend to agree with you. i looked somewhat askance at that piece when i initially read it. i threw it out here just for comments.

"People repeat experiences that they like. Many people find ketamine and other dissociatives to be absolutely horrible highs that they cannot imagine repeating. For these people, the same experience that is "addictive" for others is "anti-addictive." I would tend to conclude that since physiological dependence to ketamine and dextromethorphan has not been demonstrated, persons abusing high quantities of them simply really, really like them. Similar behavior has been observed with other psychedelic drugs. For instance, Ram Dass admitted to using LSD continuously for two weeks, and to taking ascending doses to outrun the tolerance."

yes, but just because a drug is not physiologically addictive does not mean that "addiction" or habitual use involving psychological factors is automatically benign. in many cases, "psychological addiction" is much more insidious than the physical aspects of addiction. methadone may block the physical cravings of heroin addicts, but it doesn't take away the desire to get stoned.

i think your ram dass comparison doesn't work in this context. what you're referring to is a one-time thing that he and a group of others did for a couple of weeks at Millbrook...an experiment, like "let's see what happens if we try to trip constantly without coming down". many people have attested to the "psychedelic heroin" properties of ketamine (& these are enthusisasts we're talking about here, not 'just say no' propagandists), & while many folks have undoubtedly used lsd and other psychedelics to excess, the tolerance factor plays a large role in curbing abusive patterns of use. in addition, the disassociatives have been reported to offer users anti-anxiety and anti-depressive effects, which are certainly not by any means a consistent or reliable factor in heavily repeated experiences involving lsd and the other "classic" psychedelics. there must be something insidious about heavy k use and the potential for seduction which prompts even the most enthusiastic of experimenters to warn about it, while not making any similar warnings about the dangers in say, smoking pot everyday...

"The construction it has been given in popular culture lends it these associations. Intrinsically, the chemical is simply a tool in the hands of the explorer."

but those associations are there for good reason. it's not like lsd urban myths and hysteria involving chromosome damage, going blind from staring at the sun, etc. again, two famous explorers of ketamine died deaths in direct connection with their use of the drug. the same cannot be said of lsd, psilocybin, etc. if as you put it, "intrinsically...it's simply a tool in the hands of the explorer", then is say, datura just intrinsically a tool in the hands of the explorer?...or ibogaine, which you express reservations about concerning its toxicity? as you and i and everyone knows, each substance has it's own qualities, levels of toxicity, potential for side effects, addiction, etc. they are not blank slates or pieces of clay that have empty or indeterminate properties or that we can mold to our will!

> ...thoughts about Lilly's k-vision of
> a future where water-based life forms
> are eliminated by "solid state entities"?
---
"Sounds like a very faithful reflection of the concerns of the collective unconscious of his time with the concerns of the demands of mechanization versus the demands of ecology."

i think it's rather prophetic, myself, in light of how things have developed since he had those experiences (although, curiously, he seemed to recant it all later, saying that it was just him getting back in touch with his bones, or something like that). in his book "simulations of god" (really interesting, if you can find a copy) he refers to science fiction-like scenarios where the point of human evolution is simply to evolve to where we are able to build computers, which then proceed to dominate every area of human life, and eventually "take over", as humanity becomes extinct. a.i. certainly has a long way to go, but our society is definitely inextricably wound up with our computers, and perhaps undesirably so (y2k worries and so forth).

thank you so much for your input, Walkaway. please understand that i am not trying to discourage experimentation with k and other disassociatives...but i do find aspects of these compounds troubling, in ways that i don't find some of the "classic" ones to present a problem (not that they are without their potential dangers, obviously). i'm simply expressing my own personal concerns; hope i do not sound too alarmist or argumentative.

incidentally, i only just recently started looking at some of the dxm websites that are out there. wow! some truly far out stuff (though again, troubling, with many reports of deaths and other problems related to the use of dxm...which one would not be likely to find, and certainly not in such numbers with lsd and the like). i had no idea dxm had become such a phenomenon. the kids today, they are crazy! (and i myself am "only" three decades old)

[Halfglass]

David: Actually the DXM faq. seems to suggest that death from DXM is only a handful and that a few of those were suicides (3000mg range and it's respiratory shut-down time--but 700mgs is a substantial ride--although my journeys into other realities, everything from watching a "thought train" roll itself into a piece of DNA, to falling into The Source of eveything, comes at 1000mg +). Someone on here said there was a quote about K, that it takes one into the realm of the dead. It does. The K trip is EXACTLY like the DXM. You go to the same Hive Mind of ancestors, and endless people in chambered living areas (at least after you settle down and forfeit what you are, to it)--visions beyond words too. The Other I encountered on K (did it once) were as well the SAME beasts from the DXM trance. I have to say, to the experienced and mature out there who've yet to feel this--these chems are the deepest most profound doorways--they should be tried.

[ September 25, 2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[sidecross]

McKenna talked about what is known as "LD 50" or lethal dose 50. What this boils down to is a dose where 50% of who ever takes that dose has a 50% fatality rate.

The problem as I see it is that some of the compounds being discussed here have a poor LD 50 profile. Halfglass example of a possible lethal dose of DXM at 3000 mg and an effective dose of 1000mg shows a poor LD50 profile. Knowing your chemist's ability to know their work quality is to say the least paramount.

McKenna advised psilocybian use for the less daring because of its wide LD50 profile. Taking a 4 or 5 times the effective dose would not be even close to being fatal.

Taking risks is the right any explorer needs, and I hope my comment is not interrupted as anything but just another fact in the calculus any explorer should consider.

[ September 25, 2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: sidecross ]

[Walkaway]

---
> heh-heh...actually, isn't that what
> someone said about when alan watts
> tried dmt; it was the only time anyone
> ever saw him rendered speechless by
> something?
---
Yes. Alan Watts used to boast that no psychedelic drug could shut him up. Oscar Janiger told him that he thought DMT could do it. After Watts took DMT. he sat, astonished, speechless, as Janiger leaned over him and said, "Say something, Alan! Your reputation is at stake."
---
McKenna's discussions of ketamine use tended to be utterly trivial - as when he repeatedly stated that ketamine had a vast number of different presentational possibilities based on dose, then went on to state that he had only used high doses, then went on to state that high doses prevent memory formation, then concluded by saying that based only on his use of such doses he had decided that ketamine was useless. (for instance: "The thing about Ketamine, though, that has to be said is that it has a vast range of presentational possibilities based on dose. Some people who do it frequently do as little as 50 milliliters. That is obviously a very, very different experience than 200 milliliters. I did it about five or six times, and I always did quite high doses, and while it was happening it was very interesting but I could bring almost nothing out of it. And to me that's a requirement of a psychotropic substance - that you be able to talk about it afterwards." -interview with Bruce Eisner, Psychedelic Island Views, volume 3, issue 1, p. 7) Why
didn't he try varying the dose?
---
In an interview with Charles Hayes, he confessed that it was only while on ketamine that his ego had ever been completely lost in the noise of experience, and that he'd lost the concept that he was high on a drug:
---
"This has never happened to me on any other substance. I'm not sure it's a pro or a con, but I'd lost the concept of 'high on a drug,' so I couldn't figure out what was happening.
"What is this? I asked.
"Who's asking?
"Who cares?
I was grappling with this for a few minutes, and then it hit me. This is a trip! And then it all came together. Oh right! I'm a human being. I took a drug. This is a psychedelic experience, and an interesting one, in fact. Now I'm oriented. Let the trip proceed. But those few minutes in which I was just lost in the noise were very bizarre, because I just couldn't figure out who or what it was."
---
(Hayes, Tripping, p. 418)
---
> the mckenna comment re k that i
> remember reading is that he
> complained that it what was like
> walking into an empty, newly
> built office building; kind of
> "cold" and spooky
---
There were actually many McKenna comments on ketamine, all of them equally superficial, in my opinion. Consider:
---
"...[L]ow dose K was pure emotion, no thinking. Just a warm golden sun of love for my partner into which I could dive like a pool. It seems to me that if you take K in the dark by yourself, it'll be cold. If you take 50 mg i.m. in a warm sunny bedroom with a friend, you'll have a very different experience. Where you are and who you are with do count...People who think they're made of plastic and have turned into computers are telling us something about themselves as well as something about the drug..."
---
(Ketamine User, as quoted in Jansen, Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, p. 79)
---
> he contrasted it with drugs like
> psilocybin which he thought had
> a deep morphogenetic field built
> up from centuries of human use.
---
I always treasured this query from David Jay Brown:
---
"Don't you think it's true that the designer psychedelics and the brain machines don't have any morphogenetic field, so in a sense one is carving a new morphogenetic field with their use. Consequently, there would be more possibilities for new things to happen - unlike the psychoactive substances which you speak of that have ancient morphogenetic fields, and are much more entrenched in predictability and pattern - and therefore not as free for new types of expression?"
---
(Brown and Novick, Mavericks of the Mind, p. 19)
---
"The experiences Lilly described had an inhuman, cold and computer-like flavor, infused with the chill of science and space, contrasting with the earthy warmth and emotion of Moore's adventures with the Goddess...We should not ascribe 'coldness' or 'warmth' to particular molecules, as these are clearly attributes of their users. This is a matter on which my opinion differs from that of the 'molecular mystics' such as Terence McKenna, who ascribed personalities to the molecules themselves (especially DMT and psilocybin in his case), and Rupert Sheldrake whose idea that each molecule has a 'morphogenetic field' carries similar implications, and was used by McKenna to support his arguments."
---
(Jansen, Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, p. 68)
---
BTW, how do you think it is affecting the morphogenetic field of the mushroom for violent rappers such as Eminem to be so fond of using them? How is the morphogenetic field of the mushrooms affecting Eminem?
---
> but i guess maybe you have to buy
> into the morphogenetic field idea
> to go with that objection.
---
"I had a discussion with McKenna late at night in his house outside San Frnacisco, in 1989...I wanted to know how he reconciled his antipathy towards human-made drugs with the many claims that these drugs had produced spiritual experiences. He felt at that stage that ketamine was like an empty building because not enough people had been there. It was, according to McKenna, new and artificial, as it had not been taken by shamen for thousnads of years like 'magic mushrooms.' However, most people who take ketamine do not find an empty building. Many have reported finding 'everyone who has ever lived' there. The newly synthesized LSD-25 was not described by Albert Hofmann as being 'like an empty building' either. If 'morphogenetic field' theory has any validity (and more work needs to be done on the quantum basis of mind before we will know the answer to that question), then it seems more consistent with emerging principles for such fields to be linked to mental states, and not to specific molecules. If that were the case, then every person who had ever lived, died, or had a dream at night would have helped to form the ketamine experience, and amongst drugs, it would be the largest, most complex and most elaborate 'building' of them all as it represetns a state that all persons go through in the processes of life, death, and dreaming."
---
(Jansen, Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, pp. 68-9)
---
> lsd-related deaths? really?
---
Yes, really. Death due to behavioral toxicity subsequent to LSD ingestion has been well-documented.
---
> i just find it disturbing, in the
> case of k...marcia moore was the
> first person to write a book about
> ketamine
---
The Scientist and Journeys to the Bright World were both published in the same year.
---
> and turner was a pretty
> famous psychonaut. to me that
> would be the equivalent of say,
> ken kesey dying from lsd, and then
> the same happening to ralph mentzner
> a few years later.
---
First, Turner's death occurred 18 years after Moore's. This is not a "few years." Second, several of the early LSD advocates were quite lucky not to have died given their reckless behavior. Ram Dass, for instance, jumped out of a window while on LSD, to test the hypothesis that he could fly:
---
"Richard Alpert had come a long way since the days when he was moving up the academic ladder at Harvard University. 'I had a lot of identities that I called Richard Alpert. I played the cello, I flew an airplane, I was charming. I was a Jewish boy making good in Boston.' But he gave it all up for a new cause, which he embraced with the zeal of a true believer. His faith was such that he became convinced during an acid trip at Millbrook that he could actually fly.
"To test this hypothesis in the soundest empirical fashion, he jumped out a second story window. Alpert broke his leg but endured the discomfort amiably; the experiment, he thought, had been a noble one."
(Lee & Shlain, Acid Dreams, pp. 101-2)
---
He also apparently tried to jump out of a window while high on STP/DOM:
---
"Among the first to try STP was Richard Alpert, who took it in an apartment building on 57th Street in Manhattan and promptly tried to walk out the window. He was so scared by his response that he said the drug should not be released under any circumstances, that it was too intense."
---
(Stafford, Psychedelics Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, p. 290)
---
Also:
---
"They tried all kinds of settings. Alpert would take LSD on the streets of New York City, or by a fire in the living room, or on top of a mountain. He got in his airplane once after ingesting a psychedelic and nearly killed himself. 'Scared the shit out of myself,' is one way he has phrased that report. 'I was piloting, and when I looked down I found the earth was turning in circles. I thought, Oh, oh, now I've gone too far! Now I've done it!'"
---
That information can be found at:
---
Psychedelics 101 (http://www.geocities.com/psychedelics101/Index.html)
---
Thus, it would seem to be extreme luck that prevented Ram Dass from being an LSD-related fatality. Third, neither Moore nor Turner died "from" ketamine (i.e., an overdose) - both died presumably ketamine related deaths. Moore repeatedly injected ketamine outside on a cold night, which resulted in her freezing to death. Turner presumably shot up in the tub and fell over at some point while "high." Both deaths could have been avoided given very basic safety precautions, and the majority of LSD-related deaths are of a similar nature - i.e., they might have been prevented given a trip-sitter.
---
> and yes, there have been deaths
> associated with other psychedelics,
> but no others that come to mind
> involving famous users.
---
This would appear to be a matter of sheer luck. I can easily multiply examples, if you wish.
---
> that two publically well-known users of
> k died k-related deaths seems if not
> statistically, then at least
> symbolically important.
---
The death of any user of any drug is symbolically important. The fact that a 19 year old kid dies while on LSD is just as relevant as a public advocate of LSD dying on LSD. The person who dies is not simply a number - they are a living, breathing person, with hopes, dreams, family, and friends. The fact that a well-known LSD advocate broke his leg jumping out a window because he thought he could fly also seems symbolically important to me.
---
> to me, it's an eerie coincidence,
> especially considered in light of
> turner's ominous-sounding
> "frankenstein molecule" comment.
---
The traditional shamanic drug is tobacco. Turner's "tryptamine entity" communication would seem to bear material suspiciously reminiscent of a modern Western misconcpetion of the historical nature of drug use in shamanism. The majority of drug use has not been peyote, mushrooms, ayahuasca, and ibogaine. Tobacco in large doses is the shamanic drug par excellence, and it quite regularly causes death, physiological damage, and physiological dependence. How does tobacco obey the "shamanic rules" spoken of by Turner's "entity?"
---
> therapeutic use is one thing, but here
> is my admittedly wild speculation:
> perhaps on some metaphysical level, it
> is unwise or dangerous for humans to
> engage in prolonged deep exploration
> of the k realms.
---
I feel that it is unwise for humans to engage in high-level abuse of any drug, including cannabis, caffeine, nicotine, ketamine, dextromethorphan, d-lysergic acid diethylamide, psiloc(yb)in, dimethyltryptamine, five methoxy dimethyltryptamine, etc.,
---
> lucid, yes, i guess...but, again, at
> the risk of sounding like some sort
> of psychic fascist, i think that it
> might be unpleasant to spend
> significant amounts of time around
> someone who is not particularly
> well-grounded in (consensus?) reality...
---
I think he knew well enough what the 'consensus' was - I just don't think he cared very much. I suppose you might also find a Zen Roshi to be disconcerting, in much the same fashion - the ruthless destruction of unfounded assumptions.
---
> what's with the bit about harlem?
---
Clearly a joke, as revealed by the use of the phrase "or something." He is detailing a caricature of drug addiction as popularly conceived.
---
> and coke is some magic drug which was
> responsible for freud's development of
> psychoanalysis?
---
I don't recall Lilly using the word 'magic.' Here is Carl Sagan's opinion on the matter, which he developed under the influence of cannabis:
---
"One night, high on cannabis, I was delving into my childhood, a little self-analysis, and making what seemed to me to be very good progress. I then paused and thought how extraordinary it was that Sigmund Freud, with no assistance from drugs, had been able to achieve his own remarkable self-analysis. But then it hit me like a thunderclap that this was wrong, that Freud had spent the decade before his self-analysis as an experimenter with and a proselytizer for cocaine; and it seemed to me very apparent that the genuine psychological insights that Freud brought to the world were at least in part derived from his drug experience. I have no idea whether this is in fact true, or whether the historians of Freud would agree with this interpretation, or even if such an idea has been published in the past, but it is an interesting hypothesis and one which passes first scrutiny in the world of the downs."
---
(http://www.marijuana-uses.com/examples/Mr_X.htm)
---
You might also consider Lilly's comments in an interview with Karl Jansen:
---
Jansen: Are you glad or sorry that you became involved with ketamine?

Lilly: It saved my life. It got me off cocaine. I took cocaine to explore Freud's theories about sexuality. Freud's sexual theories were based on his cocaine use. Some of his writings about cocaine are in the Library of Congress and they are sealed. The public is not allowed to read them.
---
(Jansen, Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, p. 65)
---
> i find him to be very glib and
> self-righteous in the interview...
---
The persons who actually interviewed him found him "both playful and profound," resembling "an extraterrestrial Zen master." (Brown and Novick, Mavericks of the Mind, p. 204)
---
> and manically leaping about from one
> story/half-baked idea to the next,
> often with very tenuous
> connections...flaky.
---
I found the interview delightful when I first read it, 5 years ago, and it remains a treasured part of my library. I think Lilly comes across as impressively intelligent and simultaneously well-experienced in alternate states of being. I certainly consider his interview to contain more material fruitful for reflection than the interview with Terence McKenna, but I found Lilly to be a more generally impressive thinker than McKenna. More on this momentarily. BTW, we ought also consider these comments of Jansen's in reference to Lilly:
---
"In the course of the afternoon it became clear that he still has an acute intelligence. He was lucid, and able to quote from his books and those of others at some length. On that occasion, there was no clearly obvious problem with his attention, concentration, and short or long term memory. He was in good spirits, fluent, and his doors of perception were not unhinged. The overall impression was of a kindly, good-humored eccentric with some unorthodox beliefs and unusual habits, who did not take himself too seriously."
---
(Jansen, Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, p. 63)
---
> from the autobiographical accounts
> that i remember, i don't remember him
> being "weird as hell" prior to his
> heavy k use. i recall that he was
> a pretty straight-laced guy, roman
> catholic, married, cal tech scientist
> and all that...
---
He confessed to extensive use of LSD ("over 500 times in the tank"; the use of the qualifier leads one to suspect a higher overall number), amphetamines, cocaine, and alcohol prior to his use of ketamine. He was also a regular smoker for a number of years. As a child, he had several visions of guardian angels and God. While not using drugs, he experienced himself as dissociated from his normal personality, and conceived of himself as an extraterrestrial agent attached to a human called "John." He had to be convinced by his psychoanalyst not to hammer electrodes into his brain as a means of testing electrical brain stimulation on humans. He pioneered the use of sensory isolation tanks, spending long periods of time in these tanks experiencing various 'psychedelic' phenomena, years prior to his use of LSD or ketamine. He was married three times, had several extra-marital affairs, and in many other ways was anything but "straight-laced."
---
> i don't expect, nor am i asking that
> people who take lots of psychedelics
> to sound like investment bankers; but
> to give an example, someone like
> mckenna, who took a ton of drugs and
> spoke on very far-out subjects, always
> seemed thoroughly grounded and coherent.
---
I do not consider McKenna's rants on language-generated reality, machine elves (whom I've never seen in my repeated use of DMT), psilocybin vs. LSD, 'shrooms from space, 'shrooms as progenitor of all human intellectual/spiritual life to be 'thoroughly grounded and coherent,' and I find his emphasis on entity contacts and 'hallucinations' distasteful.
---
> yes, but just because a drug is not
> physiologically addictive does not mean
> that "addiction" or habitual use
> involving psychological factors is
> automatically benign.
---
I didn't say that. To quote Jeffrey Schaler: "Addiction is a choice." People can make very bad choices for themselves, but they're still their choices. No drug robs one of the ability to choose. Hell, the majority of people who use cocaine or heroin never go on to "addiction," so how we can postulate that there is something inherently "addictive" about these substances?
---
> in many cases, "psychological addiction"
> is much more insidious than the physical
> aspects of addiction.
---
There's nothing insidious about it. People like something, they want to repeat it. If they can be shown why they shouldn't like it, their desire to repeat it will diminish. I've had multiple friends who were heroin addicts who successfully treated both physiological and psychological drug dependence with d-methorphan (DXM).
---
> methadone may block the physical
> cravings of heroin addicts, but
> it doesn't take away the desire
> to get stoned.
---
The desire to get stoned is not some insidious invading entity. It is born of the person, and of their needs at the moment. Most persons with problematic drug use patterns mature out of them on their own. This includes such supposedly absolutely addictive drugs as heroin. We might also consider Lilly's comments on this subject:
---
"Jansen: Do you think that you were or are addicted to ketamine?

"Lilly: Addiction to me is a lousy concept. People take ketamine because they like the effects. If they don't like the effects, they stop taking it. I took it 22 hours a day for 6 weeks once, because I wanted to. When I wanted to stop, I stopped.

"Jansen: What are the side-effects that bother you the most?

"Lilly: Other people and their judgements. There's nothing about it that really bothers me."
---
(Jansen Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, p. 65)
---
> i think your ram dass comparison
> doesn't work in this context.
---
It sure does. Alpert was clearly psychologically dependent on LSD and other psychedelic drugs, as evidenced by the following quotes:
---
"Now my own experiences were horrible and beautiful and I kept working in different environments and settings and whenever anybody that I trusted brought along some new chemical I would open my mouth and off I'd go. I was interested in doing this exploring.
"For example, at one point I had been in the meditationr oom in the community house we had in Newton, and I was for four hours in a state of total homogenous light, bliuss, and then I recall starting to 'come down' and thus huge red wave rolled in across the room. It looked like a cross between a William Blake (that picture of the wave) sketch and a Hieronymous Bosch painting, and it was all my identities, all rolling in over me. I remember holidng up my hand and saying, 'NO, NO, I don't want to go back.' It was like this heavy burden I was going to take on myself. And I realized I didn't have the key - I didn't know the magic words, like 'Abracadabra' or 'Hocus Pocus' or whatever it was going to be that would stop that wave, and it rolled in over me and then ... 'Oh, here I am again - Richard Alpert - what a drag!"
---
(Dass, Be Here Now)
---
> what you're referring to is a
> one-time thing
---
That particular episode of drug abuse was a limited 'experiment.' Their weekly use of LSD, daily use of pot/hashish, and varying use of other durgs (such as DMT, JB-329, and others) meant that there was very little sober time for the group for quite a while.
---
> that he and a group of others did for
> a couple of weeks at Millbrook...
---
Three weeks. Half as long as Lilly's most protracted ketamine binge.
---
> an experiment
---
An 'experiment' only in the very loosest sense of the term.
---
> like "let's see what happens if we try
> to trip constantly without coming down".
---
Ralph Metzner didn't participate because he thought it a ridiculous waste of LSD. He clearly didn't see the value in this 'experiment.' They were taking 400 ug of LSD every 4 hours at the beginning, and finally, were drinking out of the bottle of LSD.
---
> many people have attested to the
> "psychedelic heroin" properties
> of ketamine (& these are
> enthusisasts we're talking about
> here, not 'just say no'
> propagandists)
---
I found LSD to be far more 'psychologically addictive' than ketamine or DXM, i.e., I liked it more.
---
> and while many folks have undoubtedly
> used lsd and other psychedelics to
> excess, the tolerance factor plays
> a large role in curbing abusive
> patterns of use.
---
It isn't hard to take large doses of LSD every three days and trip balls (I've done it), and I'd say taking LSD even once weekly (the preferred method of use at Millbrook, when they weren't going on, 3 or 4 day, or longer, 'experiments') is tending toward abuse. Beyond that, you might consider accounts such as the following, from a discussion of Michael Hollingshead by Ralph Metzner:
---
"Michael used to take a large dose of LSD every day, while he still had the supply. He made it up into a kind of paste, like peanut butter, and would spoon it out of a jar. He thought of it as a kind of daily consciousness vitamin."
---
(ed. Robert Forte, Timothy Leary: Outside Looking In , p. 183)
---
> in addition, the disassociatives have
> been reported to offer users
> anti-anxiety and anti-depressive
> effects
---
They have also been reported to provoke panic attacks. While I agree that the dissociatives are less likely to provoke panic reactions than drugs such as LSD or psilocybin, they are not unknown. Further, this tendency of the dissociatives to promote a more centered and peaceful mind state has been viewed by some users (such as Robert Anton Wilson) as an engineering improvement over LSD:
---
"Drugs that are either safer or less likely to spook the herd than grass, coke, and acid are certainly on the way...Ketamine (researched by Dr. John C. Lilly and allegedly given to astronauts to prepare them for zero gravity) seems to detatch brain from body (and from body emotions) and leave one suspended in the yogic samadhi state for an hour at a time, as compared with the brief seconds of samadhi at LSD peak."
---
(Wilson, Right Where You Are Sitting Now, p. 176)
---
> which are certainly not by any
> means a consistent or reliable
> factor in heavily repeated
> experiences involving lsd and
> the other "classic" psychedelics.
---
First, LSD was tested in low daily maintenance doses (that do not generate tolerance) as an anti-depressant. Albert Hofmann reportedly still considers this a valuable indication for the use of LSD in medicine. Second, dissociatives are classic psychedelics, as both PCP and ketamine were extensively referred to as psychedelics in professional literature of the 1960s and 1970s.
---
> there must be something insidious about
> heavy k use and the potential for
> seduction which prompts even the most
> enthusiastic of experimenters to warn
> about it, while not making any similar
> warnings about the dangers in say,
> smoking pot everyday...
---
Smoking pot daily is doubtless much worse for one's lung than daily ketamine use. Dissociatives have nasty cognitive impairing effects for many people if used heavily, but these clear once abuse ceases, and can be largely prevented by the use of the proper supplemntation (a good diet, a multivitamin/multimineral, a bevy of anti-oxidants, megadoses of vitamin B complex, DMAE and piracetam being of prime importance here).
---
> but those associations are there for
> good reason.
---
Not really, no.
---
> it's not like lsd urban myths and
> hysteria involving chromosome damage,
> going blind from staring at the sun, etc.
---
What about the "fact" that, as "everyone knows" in our culture, that LSD makes users "insane?" There are well-documented instances in which LSD appears to have played at least a contributing role to the development of "psychosis," so do we conclude from this evidence, without further reflection, that popular constructions of LSD are true? No, because statistically, they aren't. It's just as "everyone knows" that a substantial number of people die the first time they use pure cocaine intranasally. Everyone may know it, but it just ain't so.
---
> if as you put it, "intrinsically...it's
> simply a tool in the hands of the
> explorer", then is say, datura just
> intrinsically a tool in the hands of
> the explorer?
---
Yes. If the explorer is willing to accept the very real risk of death subsequent to ingestion of effective doses of Datura, then they can have at it. I certainly found the use of anticholinergics to have some interesting implications in understanding the evolution of the European witch cults, Hinduism, Buddhism, and some strains of native Shamanism. The same would, I imagine, go for ibogaine. To me, ibogaine just sounds overly toxic and not too different from a number of more readily available, far less toxic compounds.
---
> as you and i and everyone knows, each
> substance has it's own qualities
---
Molecular properties, yes.
---
> levels of toxicity
---
Sure.
---
> potential for side effects
---
Sure.
---
> addiction
---
Each molecule may differ as to whether and to what extent people can become physiologically dependent on their use. Psychological dependence is not a property of molecules, but rather, to the dependent person.
---
> they are not blank slates or pieces of
> clay that have empty or indeterminate
> properties or that we can mold to our
> will!
---
I will have to partially disagree. While many of the physiological side-effects of substances are fairly consistent, psychological effects seem greatly dependent on set/setting. There have been studies done in which amphetamine was administered to 9 out 0f 10 subjects, and a barbituate to the 10th. The barbituate taking subject became euphoric, stimulated, and talkative. Another experiment was conducted with barbituates for the first 9, and amphetamine for the 10th. The 10th person became sleepy. Drug discrimination studies have showed experienced IV users of cocaine and methamphetamine unable to distinguish IV doses of caffeine or nicotine from their drugs of choice. I do think that much of the 'flavor' of a particular substance's iberiation is inherent ot the molecular effects on the brain, but I don't think psychological states are invariable for any substance. Witness the anthropological study I cited in another thread that found that 23% of iboga initiates reported witnessing nothing out of the ordinary while using iboga. Witness the scores of young people who take LSD to sit and giggle at the visuals, and who never receive the slightest bit of insight. Witness the transformation of MDMA from an exquisitely heart-opening 'penicillin for the soul' into simply another recreational stimulant. Opium, the most profane of all drugs in our modern construction, has a history of religious usage, and, I could cite a number of 'psychedelic' experiences catalyzed by its use. I think it all comes down to the visionary insight of Hakim Bey: "the dullard finds even wine tasteless, while the Sorceror is intoxicated by the mere sight of water."
---
> i think it's rather prophetic, myself,
> in light of how things have developed
> since he had those experiences
---
There are a number of science fiction books from the same time period that would seem equally 'prophetic.'
---
> though again, troubling, with many
> reports of deaths and other problems
> related to the use of dxm...
---
I believe there are currently three confirmed deaths related to the use of DXM and DXM only, and at least one of those was ruled an intentional suicide. Given that DXM has been used as a psychedelic drug for over 40 years in completely uncontrolled environments, this seems good testimony to the drug's overall safety.
---
> i had no idea dxm had become such a
> phenomenon. the kids today, they are crazy!
---
Become?
---
From:
---
Drugs of Abuse in the Future
by Alexander T. Shulgin, Clin. Toxicol. 8(4), 405-456 (1975)
---
"Past examples abound of this transition from 'harmless' to 'abuse' status. A single illustration may be presented in the case of the substance dextromethorphan, an effective antitussive mentioned earlier in the section on opiates. This drug was widely available in tablet form under the trade name of Romilar some 15 years ago. Although the nominal dosage needed for effective cough suppression is 10 to 20 mg, it was found that 10 to 20 times this dosage produced a severe state of intoxication that resembled several of the atropine-like parasympathomimetics. There was an abrupt upswing of sales and abuse, and the chemical was withdrawn from the OTC market. Recently however, it has reappeared under a host of new names but only in a mixture with such quantities of excipient syrups that intentional overdosages would require Herculean devotion. Nonetheless, there was a recent broadcast mailing to "Householder" of free trial samples of "Vicks44" diluted with some appealing flavoring, and it is possible that this cycle may yet be repeated."
---
Available at:
---
http://www.rhodium.ws/chemistry/shulgin.futuredrugs.html
---
I know several individuals who began using DXM in the 1960s (one preferred it to LSD, and had tried it prior to using grass or acid), and there are multiple literary references to DXM use (including one in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) from around the same time period. DXM has been used "recreationally" as a psychedelic drug for almost as long as LSD.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[ September 27, 2003, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Walkaway ]

[daniel]

the DXM fairies have found their champion!

[PeoplesMind]

---
> McKenna talked about what is known as "LD 50"
> or lethal dose 50. What this boils down to is
> a dose where 50% of who ever takes that dose
> has a 50% fatality rate.
---
A dose where 50% have a 50% fatility rate? That would be (.5x.5=.25) 25% of the people dying? I don't know where you studied basic science but an LD50 is dose of a chemical which kills 50% of a sample population, not 50% of that 50% die.
---
> The problem as I see it is that some of the
> compounds being discussed here have a poor LD
> 50 profile. Halfglass example of a possible
> lethal dose of DXM at 3000 mg and an effective
> dose of 1000mg shows a poor LD50 profile.
> Knowing your chemist's ability to know their
> work quality is to say the least paramount.
---
WOAH! Where did you get 1 GRAM as the "effective dose" of DXM? DXM usually gets active in individuals at about 1 to about 1.5 mg/kg. This would make the effective dose for a higher than normal invidual of 200LB, about 135mg to feel the effects (assuming of course that they are not enzyme deficient, where they would feel the dxm at much lower doses...) Even Erowid concurs :
---
" DXM is considered to be quite safe, even at doses well above those recommended for medical use (10-50mg). A handful of fatalities have been reported from DXM-alone (more are reported from DXM combined with other drugs), but the dosages taken for these fatal overdoses are uncertain. A paper by Gosselin in 1981 estimated the lethal oral dose of between 50 and 500mg/kg"
(http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_dose.shtml)
---
The possibilities of this would entail a possible lethal dose of 20,000 mg (or 20grams). A case study (Am J Emerg Med 1995;13:174-176) showed use of 36 to 48 ounces of Robitussin DM a day, or 2160 to 2880 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide for up to 5 years, with little or no toxicity.
---
Perhaps you should acutally research a drug before declaring it a high risk?
---
> McKenna advised psilocybian use for the less
> daring because of its wide LD50 profile.
> Taking a 4 or 5 times the effective dose would
> not be even close to being fatal.
---
> Taking risks is the right any explorer needs,
> and I hope my comment is not interrupted as
> anything but just another fact in the calculus
> any explorer should consider.
---
The fact of the matter is that risks are always there, try and minimize them. Also, if the risk is too high (ie taking a substance nobody has ever tried before), be more cautious and wary than ever. Calculated risk is what is needed, not plain risk.
---
peace,
Nitin

[sidecross]

PeoplesMind Takes No Slack!

I was quoting to the best of my memory what Terence McKenna said. If you have a problem with what I thought he said that is OK; everyone should verify for themselves.

I was responding to Halfglass' description of lethal dose to effective dose. The point I was trying to make concerned the ratio he reported in his post.

As for the quote by PeoplesMind: "…Perhaps you should acutally research a drug before declaring it a high risk?", I did not declare any substance as a high risk.

[Magnus_Grey]

Also not that many medicines have a much lower range of error than DXM, as do many other drugs. A few, such as datura and ibogane, are toxic in doeses lower than the effective psychedelic ammounts, so I guess everything is relative.

[John]

I think that the applicable concept is really the therapeutic index of a drug which is the ratio between the toxic dose and the therapeutic dose. What you want is something with a high T.I., which would mean that the toxic dose is much higher than the effective dose, thereby reducing the risk of slipping over the line. Obviously it's nice if a drug has a high LD50, but what really matters is that the dose you need to get off on is not even close to the dose that could kill you.

[Magnus_Grey]

"the DXM fairies have found their champion! "

Wow Daniel, were you in an "intense headspace" when you came up with that? Or is that your day to day genious at work?

[Walkaway]

---
> the DXM fairies have found their champion!
---
What DXM fairies? I'm in communication with an ultra-intelligent Ball of Blue Light Who I meet whenever I take 600 mg or more of DXM, and It says It's never heard of any DXM fairies.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[David Orange]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Walkaway:
[QB]---
>Yes. Alan Watts used to boast that no >psychedelic drug could shut him up. Oscar >Janiger told him that he thought DMT could do >it. After Watts took DMT. he sat, astonished, >speechless, as Janiger leaned over him and >said, "Say something, Alan! Your reputation is >at stake."

that's pretty funny.
---
>McKenna's discussions of ketamine use tended to >be utterly trivial... "while it was happening it >was very interesting but I could bring almost >nothing out of it. And to me that's a >requirement of a psychotropic substance - that >you be able to talk about it afterwards." ->interview with Bruce Eisner, Psychedelic >Island Views, volume 3, issue 1, p. 7) Why
>didn't he try varying the dose?

well, mckenna is not alone in complaining that revelations produced by ketamine are very difficult to take back "home" with you. sure, his preferences for certain substances at times seem arbitrary; his arguments regarding long history of shamanic use, plants vs man-made stuff, ease of metabolism by one's system, etc. notwithstanding. still i think that there is some validity in his positions on these matters which warrant being taken into serious consideration, even though they are not without their flaws.
---
>In an interview with Charles Hayes, he confessed >that it was only while on ketamine that his ego >had ever been completely lost in the noise of >experience, and that he'd lost the concept that >he was high on a drug:
---
>"This has never happened to me on any other >substance. I'm not sure it's a pro or a con, >but I'd lost the concept of 'high on a drug,' so >I couldn't figure out what was happening.
>"What is this? I asked.
>"Who's asking?
>"Who cares?
>I was grappling with this for a few minutes, and >then it hit me. This is a trip! And >then it all came together. Oh right! I'm a >human being. I took a drug. This is a >psychedelic experience, and an interesting one, >in fact. Now I'm oriented. Let the trip >proceed. But those few minutes in which I >was just lost in the noise were very bizarre, >because I just couldn't figure out who or what >it was."
---
>(Hayes, Tripping, p. 418)

to me this would be a con; to lose orientation to the degree that you forget you are a human having a drug experience...i think others have expressed similar feelings and demarcate their choice of substances accordingly. i realize that for other, presumably more adventurous folks, this sort of thing sounds ideal.
---
---
>I always treasured this query from David Jay >Brown:
---
>"Don't you think it's true that the designer >psychedelics and the brain machines don't have >any morphogenetic field, so in a sense one is >carving a new morphogenetic field with their >use. Consequently, there would be more >possibilities for new things to happen - unlike >the psychoactive substances which you speak of >that have ancient morphogenetic fields, and are >much more entrenched in predictability and >pattern - and therefore not as free for new >types of expression?"
---
>(Brown and Novick, Mavericks of the Mind, >p. 19)
---
i personally don't buy into the morphogenetic field concept wholesale...but i do find it very interesting. i can see both sides of the argument that brown suggests. on the one hand, yes, one can imagine novelty being limited in a situation where a well-established morphogenetic field is present. then again, infinity is a rather sizeable place ;) and it might be nice to have some "guiderails" when exploring...

---
>BTW, how do you think it is affecting the >morphogenetic field of the mushroom for violent >rappers such as Eminem to be so fond of using >them? How is the morphogenetic field of the >mushrooms affecting Eminem?

i agree with your implication...one of the things i find troubling with mckenna's ideas of the morphogenetic field & mushrooms, is, that nastiness like ritual human sacrifice seemed to play a significant role in some of the meso-american cultures who held the mushroom to be "sacred".

as for eminem, who knows? good question. maybe his experience w/mushrooms is not unlike that of the young people you cite as an example further down in your post who take lsd and merely giggle and stare at the visuals without gaining any real insight.
---
> lsd-related deaths? really?
---
>Yes, really. Death due to behavioral toxicity >subsequent to LSD ingestion has been well->documented.

i've never heard of any and would be curious to learn of them. all i can think of is the story of art linkletter's daughter, which can't be counted because although she had used lsd, her suicide did not occur while tripping. or the case of the mk-ultra victim who jumped out the window... & since he was dosed without his knowledge that cannot be counted...i know there are tons of urban myths about people dying after attempting to fly a la ram dass' stunt.
---

> i just find it disturbing, in the
> case of k...marcia moore was the
> first person to write a book about
> ketamine
---
>The Scientist and Journeys to the >Bright World were both published in the same >year.

yeah, but i still have the distinct impression that "journeys" came out before (earlier in the year than) "the scientist". (not sure though...)
---
> and turner was a pretty
> famous psychonaut. to me that
> would be the equivalent of say,
> ken kesey dying from lsd, and then
> the same happening to ralph mentzner
> a few years later.
---
>First, Turner's death occurred 18 years after >Moore's. This is not a "few years."
>Second, several of the early LSD advocates were >quite lucky not to have died given their >reckless behavior.

the fact is, though, that they didn't. i just know that when i learned of turner's death and then recalled moore's, i was spooked. perhaps i am just easily spooked. for instance, i don't find the symbolic implications of mckenna's, who was arguably the most well-known entheogenic personality at the time of his death, dying from brain cancer to be particularly comforting. (even taking into account that his illness and death were not drug-related).

---
>...Thus, it would seem to be extreme luck that >prevented Ram Dass from being an LSD-related >fatality. Third, neither Moore nor Turner >died "from" ketamine (i.e., an overdose) - both >died presumably ketamine related deaths. Moore >repeatedly injected ketamine outside on a cold >night, which resulted in her freezing to death. >Turner presumably shot up in the tub and fell >over at some point while "high." Both deaths >could have been avoided given very basic safety >precautions, and the majority of LSD-related >deaths are of a similar nature - i.e., they >might have been prevented given a trip-sitter.

yes, but turner was such an experienced psychonaut that it gives one pause. & i know that the most popularly reported story is that moore repeatedly injected ketamine while up in the tree...but how does anyone know what really happened, since she was alone at the time, and her remains were not discovered for a couple of years?
---
> and yes, there have been deaths
> associated with other psychedelics,
> but no others that come to mind
> involving famous users.
---
>This would appear to be a matter of sheer luck. >I can easily multiply examples, if you wish.

but when we're dealing in the area of psychedelics, synchronicity undeniably comes into play. it becomes harder to view things as merely being "accidents" or "luck".
---
> that two publically well-known users of
> k died k-related deaths seems if not
> statistically, then at least
> symbolically important.
---
>The death of any user of any drug is >symbolically important.

yes, on some scale, but it does not carry the same symbolic import as someone who has a prominent public profile. due to media coverage, tons more people will know of the famous user's death, and so it will play a much larger role in the public's consciousness.

>The fact that a 19 year old kid dies while on >LSD is just as relevant as a public advocate of >LSD dying on LSD. The person who dies is not >simply a number - they are a living, breathing >person, with hopes, dreams, family, and friends.

i am certainly not trying to belittle the deaths of relatively anonymous drug users...but, the fact is, if joe shmoe dies after doing something unwise during a trip, not nearly as many people will learn of it as they will of a similar incident involving a "big name". in addition, the big names are presumably more experienced in these matters...again, i submit: marcia moore wrote (at least one of) the first glowing accounts of k use to reach the public. she obviously had no small degree of familiarity with the substance. then, eerily, she dies very shortly after, and her remains are not even discovered for two years. her book never sees a reprinting. high dose experimentation with k is very much an underground phenomenon for years afterwards (with the exception of lilly, who declined to even explicitly name the substance that he was working with) and then, when there is an above-ground renaissance of sorts during the nineties, with the advent of the web, jansen's published research, and those members of the rave community or other alternative communities such as burning man who decide to progress from small intranasal "recreational" doses to larger fully disassociative intramuscular doses, turner publishes his "how-to" "the essential guide to psychedelics" complete with a chapter on k and sinister warnings of dangers involved with k exploration. a couple of years later he dies a k-related death.

i guess it is just me, but the lesson i got from these two incidents was not "c'mon down, everybody and get on board the k train!" their stories and deaths seemed to me to be anti-advertisments for delving deeply into the k realms. it's remarkable that you've quoted and commented at length upon ram dass' follies while tripping, but have not breathed a word of the fact that lilly nearly died several times as a direct result of his k (and in one instance, pcp) explorations. i mean, how many messages does one need to get? talk about "luck"! by what stretch of miracle did he manage to keep returning to the planet?

> The fact that a well-known LSD advocate broke >his leg jumping out a window because he thought >he could fly also seems symbolically important >to me.

yeah, but ram dass is still in our world. tragically, moore and turner aren't. maybe it's not so tragic from one standpoint, if you are in a position to take to heart the lessons that k seems to impart regarding life/death issues...but turner's family, for one, do not have the benefit of profound k experiences...and are unable to get their son back. and moore's lover and co-author alltounian, who did have experience with k, had negative things to say about it many years following moore's death...calling it a "seductress, not a goddess"
---
> to me, it's an eerie coincidence,
> especially considered in light of
> turner's ominous-sounding
> "frankenstein molecule" comment.
---
>The traditional shamanic drug is tobacco.

well, that depends on what culture you're talking about.

>Turner's "tryptamine entity" communication would >seem to bear material suspiciously reminiscent >of a modern Western misconcpetion of the >historical nature of drug use in shamanism. The >majority of drug use has not been peyote, >mushrooms, ayahuasca, and ibogaine. Tobacco in >large doses is the shamanic drug par excellence, >and it quite regularly causes death, >physiological damage, and physiological >dependence. How does tobacco obey the "shamanic >rules" spoken of by Turner's "entity?"


i think you may be oversimplifying matters here. Nicotiana rustica, from what i understand, is the traditional shamanic drug, and not Nicotiana tabacum. are you referring to the death, damage, and dependence caused by 20th century casual use by everyday people of commercially manufactured cigarettes and our culture's other tobacco products?

certainly, turner was not a "shaman"; i'm not sure who, if anyone, would be considered to be shamans in our culture, if one goes by the traditional definition of one who journeys to other worlds, and then heals members' of the tribe/culture's diseases... & negotiates with the spirits and so forth, for the benefit of the culture. i don't think any of this negates possible value in the message communicated to turner...perhaps k is a dubious compound on some metaphysical level, one that's best approached by humans, if at all, with extreme caution.

---
> therapeutic use is one thing, but here
> is my admittedly wild speculation:
> perhaps on some metaphysical level, it
> is unwise or dangerous for humans to
> engage in prolonged deep exploration
> of the k realms.
---
>I feel that it is unwise for humans to engage in >high-level abuse of any drug, including >cannabis, caffeine, nicotine, ketamine, >dextromethorphan, d-lysergic acid diethylamide, >psiloc(yb)in, dimethyltryptamine, five methoxy >dimethyltryptamine, etc.,

yes, no arguments there, but you seem to be ignoring the point i was trying to make: k, and perhaps it's cousins dxm and pcp, have the capacity to transport one to unique realms, which may not be safe (for whatever obscure-to-us at this moment metaphysical reasons) for humans to explore in great depth or at length.

the ocean's depths are tremendously fascinating and compelling, but beyond a certain depth humans are not able to explore them...at least not at this time. my point is, we know so little about the astral worlds or hyperspace or whatever terms you choose to use. prudence is called for. i'm quite sure you and others exercise precautions in these matters, but personally i see k as tainted with a particular brand of danger given what i know of it's history. we may have memorized the ld50's and have a babysitter and follow our set and setting protocols to keep our body intact...but who knows what strange, possibly sinister things might be acting on or happening to our souls when in these states?
---
> lucid, yes, i guess...but, again, at
> the risk of sounding like some sort
> of psychic fascist, i think that it
> might be unpleasant to spend
> significant amounts of time around
> someone who is not particularly
> well-grounded in (consensus?) reality...
---
>I think he knew well enough what the 'consensus' >was - I just don't think he cared very much. I >suppose you might also find a Zen Roshi to be >disconcerting, in much the same fashion - the >ruthless destruction of unfounded assumptions.

i have heard him compared to a "zen master" at times...but also recall reading that his behaviour was simply obnoxious at times, particularly during his marathon k use in the seventies. groping an interviewer from 'psychology today' magazine, being totally silent or completely nonsensical during esalen seminars...the "zen master" thing is a hoary overused excuse, perenially dragged out to justify socially unacceptable or unseemly behaviour by people who are supposedly privy to "spiritual" insights that the rest of us aren't. i don't find him in interviews to be engaging in "ruthless destruction" of "unfounded assumptions"; but simply deluded, flaky, and perhaps convinced of the infallibility of his ideas. i have great respect for the zen buddhist tradition, but his discourse strikes me as being "dimestore zen", as in, "i can say whatever i want to say, and it doesn't really matter if it's true or false, because such is the nature of reality" kind of bullsh*t.
---
> what's with the bit about harlem?
---
>Clearly a joke, as revealed by the use of the >phrase "or something." He is detailing a >caricature of drug addiction as popularly >conceived.

from my reading, you're giving him way too much credit in stating that he was making reference to a "caricature of drug addiction as popularly conceived". i've read the interview several times over the years, and it's difficult for me to read it and not come away with the idea that he is making, at worst, some backhanded racial slur, or at best, a thoughtless, most unsympathetic putdown of those who struggle with genuine and very serious substance abuse problems. the "or something" part doesn't clue me into the fact that he is making a joke particularly; rather it seems characteristic of much of the interview: lots of poorly thought-out, sloppily tossed-off comments.
---
> and coke is some magic drug which was
> responsible for freud's development of
> psychoanalysis?
---
>I don't recall Lilly using the word 'magic.' >Here is Carl Sagan's opinion on the matter, >which he developed under the influence of >cannabis:...
---

i wonder if lilly got this idea from sagan...at any rate, coke is a far cry from cannabis, so i find it curious that sagan would make this odd connection. i have never heard anyone say much of anything good about cocaine... (as differentiated from coca leaves, of course) i don't doubt that it has been of assistance in helping people with creative/intellectual endeavors by providing stamina and temporarily staving off fatigue, hunger, etc. thus allowing one to work for long periods without distraction, much as other stimulants such as caffeine, amphetamines, or even nicotine. but i find it hard to swallow the idea that it "magically" (no, not lilly's word, but my own, to emphasize how incredulous i find the idea) gave freud insights into the subconscious and so forth. from what i understand, it mostly pumps up the freudian ego, and suppresses the voice of the superego. i've heard coke described as the "id" drug-- hence i find it hard to believe that it would be responsible for deep insights into the psyche. anyway, so much of freud's theories are rubbish...penis envy, anyone? the oedipal myth? the anal, oral, etc. stages?
---
>You might also consider Lilly's comments in an >interview with Karl Jansen:
---
>Jansen: Are you glad or sorry that you became >involved with ketamine?

>Lilly: It saved my life. It got me off >cocaine. I took cocaine to explore Freud's >theories about sexuality. Freud's sexual >theories were based on his cocaine use. Some of >his writings about cocaine are in the Library of >Congress and they are sealed. The public is not >allowed to read them.
---
>(Jansen, Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, >p. 65)
---

it saved his life, but didn't it also nearly kill him two or three times?... "i took cocaine to explore freud's theories about sexuality" :rolleyes: yeah, me too! and then i started smoking crack to explore jung's theories about individuation. i take with a grain of salt what lilly says here, including the claim that freud's theories were based on his experiences with coke, and the claim that some of his writings on cocaine are sitting in the lc, but sealed off to members of the public.

> i find him to be very glib and
> self-righteous in the interview...
---
>The persons who actually interviewed him found >him "both playful and profound," resembling "an >extraterrestrial Zen master." (Brown and >Novick, Mavericks of the Mind, p. 204)

yeah, no surprise there; he's one of the people that they interviewed in a book that they are trying to sell. what are they going to say? "we found him to be both full of dodgy ideas and flaky" and resembling "a self-deluded septugenarian who's taken one too many trips to the k-hole?" "playful and profound" could be euphemistic for, "he seems to be full of sh*t, but charmingly, he doesn't even believe in his own sh*t"...and "extraterrestrial zen master" sounds like a new ager's projections of their yoda fantasies onto somebody.

---
> and manically leaping about from one
> story/half-baked idea to the next,
> often with very tenuous
> connections...flaky.
---
>I found the interview delightful when I first >read it, 5 years ago, and it remains a treasured >part of my library.

i think i first read it online back in '94 or '95, and i was very disappointed and somewhat disturbed when i came across it, as i had read most of his books, and while not always being blown away by them, found myself hungry for any wisdom from someone who had been so far "out there". the interview gives me the impression that he had gone too far "out there", or whatever he had gotten from out there he was unable to share with others (so what's the point? he may as well have been shooting heroin all those years; seems to have been for ends just as narcissstic/solipsistic)

there are a couple of much better interviews with him that i used to have copies of, but can't seem to find online. one was in omni magazine in the late seventies or early eighties, and one i think was by omni people, as well, and was published in a book about the brain and consciousness circa late '80's...unfortunately i no longer own it and can't recall the name. anyway, in those interviews he is decidedly more lucid and coherent. he mentions working on a couple of different books in the interviews...which never saw the light of day, much to my disappointment. i suspect he could never get it together enough to put out something publishable.

>I think Lilly comes across as impressively >intelligent and simultaneously well-experienced >in alternate states of being.

myself, i see little wisdom at all expressed by him in the interview. if by "simultaneously well-experienced in alternate states of being" you mean, he was able, (as he talks about at a rather confusing juncture in the interview), to realize that while tripping on k he was inside of a soap opera on television, and not talking to extraterrestrials, all i have to say is wow...great for him. what a boon to humanity. maybe that means by that point he had learned to stop calling the president of the u.s. on the phone to warn him of imminent takeovers of humanity by solid-state entities.

>I certainly consider his interview to contain >more material fruitful for reflection than the >interview with Terence McKenna, but I found >Lilly to be a more generally impressive thinker >than McKenna.

wow. we differ greatly on that one, to be sure.

>More on this momentarily. BTW, we ought also >consider these comments of Jansen's in reference >to Lilly:
---
>"In the course of the afternoon it became clear >that he still has an acute intelligence. He was >lucid, and able to quote from his books and >those of others at some length. On that >occasion, there was no clearly obvious problem >with his attention, concentration, and short or >long term memory. He was in good spirits, >fluent, and his doors of perception were not >unhinged. The overall impression was of a >kindly, good-humored eccentric with some >unorthodox beliefs and unusual habits, who did >not take himself too seriously."
---

he doth protest too much??

---
> from the autobiographical accounts
> that i remember, i don't remember him
> being "weird as hell" prior to his
> heavy k use. i recall that he was
> a pretty straight-laced guy, roman
> catholic, married, cal tech scientist
> and all that...
---
>...in many other ways was anything but "straight-laced."

"straight-laced" may not be apt, but nor would i concur that he was "weird as hell".
---
> i don't expect, nor am i asking that
> people who take lots of psychedelics
> to sound like investment bankers; but
> to give an example, someone like
> mckenna, who took a ton of drugs and
> spoke on very far-out subjects, always
> seemed thoroughly grounded and coherent.
---
>I do not consider McKenna's rants on language->generated reality, machine elves (whom I've >never seen in my repeated use of DMT), >psilocybin vs. LSD, 'shrooms from >space, 'shrooms as progenitor of all human >intellectual/spiritual life to be 'thoroughly >grounded and coherent,'

mckenna speculates on some wild ideas, some of which do not appear to hold up, but they are always sophisticatedly, brilliantly, and entertainingly presented. his depth of knowledge in arcane areas such as alchemy, ethnomycology, hermeticism is astounding...as is his demonstration of knowledge of more conventional subjects such as literature, philosophy...for what it's worth, as i'm sure you know, many others have reported seeing the "machine elves".

i think he demonstrates through his talks and writings that he is absolutely grounded and more than coherent--in fact, i'll say it again, he's brilliant. his writing surely outshines that of others working in similar territory. reading mckenna is a sheer delight. shulgin, well, the narrative sections of pikhal and tikhal are a disappointing yawn. d.m. turner's prose was remarkably unremarkable, considering the fantastic subject matter. i think only dale pendell comes close to mckenna in terms of translating the beyond-poetry of the enthogenic experience into prose...but of course i would be remiss to neglect mentioning daniel p's work; BOtH is a more-than admirable and exciting entry into the field. lilly, on the other hand, didn't seem to be able to complete his books, & what books he did get out there have an anemic quality that is curious in light of the topic at hand... and in interviews he comes across as flaky.

>and I find his emphasis on entity contacts >and 'hallucinations' distasteful.

i'm very curious to know what you find "distasteful" in regard to those aspects of his work.

---
> yes, but just because a drug is not
> physiologically addictive does not mean
> that "addiction" or habitual use
> involving psychological factors is
> automatically benign.
---
>I didn't say that. To quote Jeffrey >Schaler: "Addiction is a choice." People can >make very bad choices for themselves, but >they're still their choices. No drug robs one >of the ability to choose. Hell, the majority of >people who use cocaine or heroin never go on >to "addiction," so how we can postulate that >there is something inherently "addictive" about >these substances?

i think this line of thought is rather insulting to all of the people who are lined up each day outside methadone clinics...or who throw away their lives to have another drink, or another hit on the pipe, or to do another bump of crystal. this is a very complicated subject which both of us can't help but oversimplify in this forum, but c'mon...substance abuse/addiction is an enormous problem in this culture, and it sounds to me like you're glossing over it; as though people who have tried smack or meth a couple of times wake up one day and casually or deliberately "decide" to become addicts...to someone who's out turning tricks right now in exchange for drugs, what you're saying would smack (no pun intended) of insult.
---
> in many cases, "psychological addiction"
> is much more insidious than the physical
> aspects of addiction.
---
>There's nothing insidious about it.

you're right. oh, say, next time you're zooming through the k-world, be sure to say hi to my family members who have died from substance abuse problems. maybe you can quote jeffrey schaler to them.

>People like something, they want to repeat it. >If they can be shown why they shouldn't like it, >their desire to repeat it will diminish. I've >had multiple friends who were heroin addicts who >successfully treated both physiological and >psychological drug dependence with d-methorphan (DXM).
---
> methadone may block the physical
> cravings of heroin addicts, but
> it doesn't take away the desire
> to get stoned.
---
>The desire to get stoned is not some insidious >invading entity.

not saying it is...
by "insidious", i'm referring to the subtle, seductive qualities of these urges

>It is born of the person, and of their needs at >the moment. Most persons with problematic drug >use patterns mature out of them on their own.

man, i only wish you were right about that one. so many people i can think of would still be alive right now...or would not still be struggling in the undertow after so many years.

>This includes such supposedly absolutely >addictive drugs as heroin.

yeah, okay. shall i take up shooting heroin in gradually increasing amounts over the next year? might as well, since you seem to be implying that getting over any addiction i sustain will be a cakewalk.

>We might also consider Lilly's comments on this >subject:
---
>"Jansen: Do you think that you were or are >addicted to ketamine?

>"Lilly: Addiction to me is a lousy concept. >People take ketamine because they like the >effects. If they don't like the effects, they >stop taking it. I took it 22 hours a day for 6 >weeks once, because I wanted to. When I wanted >to stop, I stopped.

gee, that doesn't sound like classic "denial" talk of an "addict" or anything...and didn't he stop at that point only because his sources of k refused to continue supplying him after observing his progressively disturbing behavior? or because he almost died after trying to do something he shouldn't have been doing on k?

>"Jansen: What are the side-effects that bother >you the most?

>"Lilly: Other people and their judgements. >There's nothing about it that really bothers me."

again, it could be argued that this is cliche addict behavior of saying "go away, leave me alone...my drinking/drugging patterns are not a problem/none of your business"...again, my bs detector tells me to take most of what lilly says with a grain of salt. he's so damn glib and convinced of his righteousness.
---
> i think your ram dass comparison
> doesn't work in this context.
---
>It sure does. Alpert was clearly >psychologically dependent on LSD and other >psychedelic drugs, as evidenced by the following >quotes:
---
..."...'Oh, here I am again - Richard Alpert - what a drag!"

many of us have felt disappointed at being dragged back down to mundane "reality" after being in blissful entheogen-induced states, but this is a far cry from the body screaming out to have a particular receptor fed when depleted of a chemical it's become habituated to...or one that we require to keep from feeling like a nervous wreck or suicidally depressed. again, i maintain that the complicated profile and unpredictable effects of lsd and similar substances make it undesirable for the average person to repeat the experience with the regularity of other drugs commonly characterized as having addictive potential.

& let's not forget that lsd, much like your wonder drug dxm, has been explored in the past as a means of overcoming addiction to other substances.
------
>...Ralph Metzner didn't participate because he >thought it a ridiculous waste of LSD. He >clearly didn't see the value in >this 'experiment.' They were taking 400 ug of >LSD every 4 hours at the beginning, and finally, >were drinking out of the bottle of LSD.

yes, i know the story... the story has been passed down precisely because it was such an aberration in the history of lsd use; virtually unthinkable to any subsequent sane explorers.

millbrook was a unique environment, crazy times...to extrapolate the ram dass lsd binge incident and attempt to characterize it as being any kind of typical pattern of lsd use is nonsensical. again, i'm talking about enthusiastic users of ketamine who have warned about disturbing use patterns that they have observed in themselves (or denied, i guess, in the case of lilly) and you keep harping on this one instance of folly involving ram dass. if there had been repeated instances of psychedelic apologists guzzling mayonnaise jars full of lsd over a weekend's time, and others consuming garbage bags full of mushrooms in a week's time, then maybe there would be cause for concern. but this doesn't seem to be a pattern.
---
> many people have attested to the
> "psychedelic heroin" properties
> of ketamine (& these are
> enthusisasts we're talking about
> here, not 'just say no'
> propagandists)
---
>I found LSD to be far more 'psychologically >addictive' than ketamine or DXM, i.e., I liked >it more.

that is your experience, i suppose, but i think what these people i'm referring to are talking about is the escapist nature of ketamine which accompanies its disassociative properties. apparently it can be very tempting to drift off and enjoy the custom-built "virtual realities" and disconnection from earthbound body-based existence that k provides...as has been often stated, lsd and the like forces one into a deeper confrontation of reality with all of its unpleasantness (unpleasantness which is in fact often amplified) rather than allowing for a true "escape".
---
> and while many folks have undoubtedly
> used lsd and other psychedelics to
> excess, the tolerance factor plays
> a large role in curbing abusive
> patterns of use.
---
>It isn't hard to take large doses of LSD every >three days and trip balls (I've done it), and >I'd say taking LSD even once weekly (the >preferred method of use at Millbrook, when they >weren't going on, 3 or 4 day, or >longer, 'experiments') is tending toward abuse. >Beyond that, you might consider accounts such as >the following, from a discussion of Michael >Hollingshead by Ralph Metzner:
---
>"Michael used to take a large dose of LSD every >day, while he still had the supply. He made it >up into a kind of paste, like peanut butter, and >would spoon it out of a jar. He thought of it >as a kind of daily consciousness vitamin."
---

as for millbrook and hollingshead, i submit that they present an very special exception...from the "early days" of the history of acid. as for patterns like you describe maintaining at one point, it's still a different story from a drug such as k, where the tolerance factor is completely absent.
---
>...First, LSD was tested in low daily >maintenance doses (that do not generate >tolerance) as an anti-depressant.

cool! sign me up! :D

> Albert Hofmann reportedly still considers this >a valuable indication for the use of LSD in >medicine. Second, dissociatives are classic >psychedelics, as both PCP and ketamine were >extensively referred to as psychedelics in >professional literature of the 1960s and 1970s.

well, here we differ on definitions. i have been using the term "classic psychedelics" to refer to lsd, mescaline, psilocybin...pcp and ketamine have certainly been acknowleged to have so-called "psychedelic" properties for decades...but generally they are placed in a seperate category from lsd and the like, due to their profound disassociative affects.
---
> there must be something insidious about
> heavy k use and the potential for
> seduction which prompts even the most
> enthusiastic of experimenters to warn
> about it, while not making any similar
> warnings about the dangers in say,
> smoking pot everyday...
---
>Smoking pot daily is doubtless much worse for >one's lung than daily ketamine use.

well, yeah, but that's because one doesn't smoke k.

---
> but those associations are there for
> good reason.
---
>Not really, no.

says you, who i take to be an enthusiastic user, but i differ in opinion here...and i honestly have no particular agenda, & am not particularly pro or con, but am simply restating things that i've read and indulging in a little speculation. admittedly i am likely not well-informed on some of these matters. hopefully this interchange will clear up some stuff.
---
---
> if as you put it, "intrinsically...it's
> simply a tool in the hands of the
> explorer", then is say, datura just
> intrinsically a tool in the hands of
> the explorer?
---
>Yes. If the explorer is willing to accept the >very real risk of death subsequent to ingestion >of effective doses of Datura, then they can have >at it. I certainly found the use of >anticholinergics to have some interesting >implications in understanding the evolution of >the European witch cults, Hinduism, Buddhism, >and some strains of native Shamanism. The same >would, I imagine, go for ibogaine. To me, >ibogaine just sounds overly toxic and not too >different from a number of more readily >available, far less toxic compounds.

okay. but i'm not putting down datura wholesale, just trying to puncture a hole in what i'm reading as your implication that different substances are essentially neutral tools.
---
> as you and i and everyone knows, each
> substance has it's own qualities
---
>Molecular properties, yes.
---
> levels of toxicity
---
>Sure.
---
> potential for side effects
---
>Sure.
---
> addiction
---
>Each molecule may differ as to whether and to >what extent people can become physiologically >dependent on their use. Psychological >dependence is not a property of molecules, but >rather, to the dependent person.

no, i can't accept that last bit. some molecules have more potential for psychological dependence in humans than others. take a substance like cocaine, which causes, a profound flood of pleasure-causing/reward-based chemicals to be released in humans. that's going to tend to lead to problems in human use. caffeine, on the other hand, which may provide a mild experience of pleasure...well, people are not going to be prostituting themselves if they can't get their daily cup of coffee...just suffering a headache.
---
> they are not blank slates or pieces of
> clay that have empty or indeterminate
> properties or that we can mold to our
> will!
---
>I will have to partially disagree. While many >of the physiological side-effects of substances >are fairly consistent, psychological effects >seem greatly dependent on set/setting. There >have been studies done in which amphetamine was >administered to 9 out 0f 10 subjects, and a >barbituate to the 10th. The barbituate taking >subject became euphoric, stimulated, and >talkative. Another experiment was conducted >with barbituates for the first 9, and >amphetamine for the 10th. The 10th person >became sleepy. Drug discrimination studies have >showed experienced IV users of cocaine and >methamphetamine unable to distinguish IV doses >of caffeine or nicotine from their drugs of >choice.

interesting. but do these studies have much value outside of a controlled lab experiment?

>I do think that much of the 'flavor' of a >particular substance's iberiation is inherent ot >the molecular effects on the brain, but I don't >think psychological states are invariable for >any substance. Witness the anthropological >study I cited in another thread that found that >23% of iboga initiates reported witnessing >nothing out of the ordinary while using iboga. >Witness the scores of young people who take LSD >to sit and giggle at the visuals, and who never >receive the slightest bit of insight. Witness >the transformation of MDMA from an exquisitely >heart-opening 'penicillin for the soul' into >simply another recreational stimulant. Opium, >the most profane of all drugs in our modern >construction, has a history of religious usage, >and, I could cite a number of 'psychedelic' >experiences catalyzed by its use. I think it >all comes down to the visionary insight of Hakim >Bey: "the dullard finds even wine tasteless, >while the Sorceror is intoxicated by the mere >sight of water."

i agree pretty much wholeheartedly with everything you wrote in the above paragraph.
---
> i think it's rather prophetic, myself,
> in light of how things have developed
> since he had those experiences
---
>There are a number of science fiction books from >the same time period that would seem >equally 'prophetic.'

yeah, i guess. but i always found that aspect of lilly's story particularly compelling; in contrast to much of whatever else came out of his mouth...and then he goes and recants the whole thing. :rolleyes:
---
> though again, troubling, with many
> reports of deaths and other problems
> related to the use of dxm...
---
>I believe there are currently three confirmed >deaths related to the use of DXM and DXM only, >and at least one of those was ruled an >intentional suicide. Given that DXM has been >used as a psychedelic drug for over 40 years in >completely uncontrolled environments, this seems >good testimony to the drug's overall safety.

browsing through the various dxm websites the other day, i got the impression that the numbers were higher, but i guess i need to go back and do more research.
---
> i had no idea dxm had become such a
> phenomenon. the kids today, they are crazy!
---
>Become?
---
>... "...DXM has been used "recreationally" as a psychedelic drug for almost as long as LSD.

wow. did not know that. i recall that the late rock critic lester bangs had a fondness for romilar, but i didn't realize that it was terribly much of a phenomenon. the earliest i heard of it was kids in the late '80's drinking robitussin. then after it was publicized on the web in the mid '90's it seemed to explode.

i guess when i look at these websites i just worry about curious young people's welfare. some of the sites i saw seemed to be a mish-mash of glorification, sober warnings, tragic stories, and recountings of deep journeys. i know that kids have a tendency to be reckless and risk-taking in general, and they are perfectly capable of harming themselves with motorcycles, skateboards, "backyard wrestling", good ol' alcohol, and whatever...but i worry and i hope that people of all ages educate themselves to the max and exercise prudence with stuff like dxm. when i browse through the drug reports on erowid i sometimes find myself reeling at the stupidity of some of the people who post there, particularly in regards to the arbitrary and undeniably dangerous cocktails of chemicals that people put in their bodies. it's truly staggering. i hope people take care of themselves.

walkaway, thanks again for another well-considered reply to my messy musings and arguments. you are obviously very well-informed and have done your homework and then some...though i do still differ with you on some points and remain unconvinced by some of your arguments. in short, i think lilly generally comes off as a fool and overly glib, i think your take on "addiction", particularly the psychological aspect, is glossing over the realities, and i still am haunted by what i see as tragic & ominous synchronicities involving major players in the story of k.

til next time,
take care
;)
---

[Walkaway]

From:
---
Lucid Responses (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/community/2020/chat_addiction030422.html)
---
Is Addiction a Choice?
Q&A: Psychologist Jeffrey Schaler

April 22 —
Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
If you're addicted to something, whose fault is it?
As ABCNEWS' John Stossel reports, "don't blame the addict" is the message we often hear from treatment facilities.

But psychologist Jeffrey Schaler says we're stronger than we think, and that overeating, smoking and other so-called addictions are things we can choose to control.

"Addiction is a behavior and all behaviors are choices," says Schaler, author of the book Addiction Is a Choice.

Schaler joined a live discussion with our viewers on Tuesday, April 22. The transcript follows.

Moderator
Welcome to our live chat with Dr. Jeffrey Schaler, a psychologist and author of the book, Addiction Is a Choice.

Irene Soble asks:
How do you define a disease? How does addiction to a drug such as alcohol or heroin compare to diseases such as adult onset diabetes or heart disease? Many of our chronic diseases are caused by multiple factors including lifestyle choices, diet, exercise, etc. Why is one a disease and the other not when choices play a major role in the development of both?

Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
Let's slow down just a bit. Let's be careful not to confuse the cause of the disease with the disease itself.

For example, smoking is a behavior that may cause lung cancer. Drinking excessive amounts of alcohol is a behavior that may cause cirrhosis of the liver. The causes are behaviors in these two cases. The diseases are different from the causes. A disease, according to the standard textbooks on pathology, refers to a physiological lesion.

Another way that we can look at this is to see that diseases are something that are present in the cadaver at autopsy. Behaviors are something that living people do. Diseases are something that people have.

Smoking and drinking, like addiction, are not found in standard textbooks on pathology because they are not diseases — they're behaviors. While we are always able to control the behaviors that lead to diseases, diseases are something we cannot control by choice; they are involuntary.

Tom George writes:
It seems to me there is a difference between different addictions. Heroin addicts go through very real and painful withdrawal symptoms when they give up heroin. But if I give up my nightly bowl of ice cream, I may whine and feel sorry for myself, but other than that I do not suffer ill affects. Would it be better to reserve the term "addiction" for cases where there are serious withdrawal symptoms?

Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
This is a good question. Let's consider love as an addiction. When you end a love relationship, you often may experience terrible withdrawal symptoms; these may include insomnia, great emotional distress and gastrointestinal problems. The person may become so despondent that they commit suicide.

Here we have an example of a person addicted to a love relationship. There is nothing that the person is physiologically addicted to. Yet the withdrawal symptoms, or the ending of the addiction, is very painful and distressing.

Many people would consider the pain associated with the breaking off of a love relationship far greater than the pain associated with heroin withdrawal. Many heroin users report that the ending of their use of heroin was no worse than a bad case of the flu.

In order to achieve anything good for ourselves, we have to struggle in life. Giving up drugs is no exception. Changing behaviors and breaking habits is often difficult. If you look back on your life, every decision you made to better yourself included some experience of discomfort.

We accept this as a matter of fact in life; the giving up of drugs is no exception. Dr. Stanton Peele and Archie Brodsky have written about this extensively in their book about addiction to love.

What we know for a fact is that many people give up heroin despite painful withdrawal symptoms. Every drug has an effect on the body and the effects may vary by the person's constitution and by the chemical properties of the drug. Many people experience very few painful withdrawal symptoms. There is no evidence to support the idea that the withdrawal symptoms, in and of themselves, cause the person to continue to use the drugs in an addictive manner.

Leigh writes:
I think blame is the least important thing here! The important thing is to get over the habit. I've gotten over some addictions with help and some on my own — it's horrible either way, and no matter what, you're bound to blame yourself. Chastising the addict, however, claiming that they are to blame and that it was their intention to ruin their life, is not the confidence-building tool that the person will need to get back on their feet and turn it around. There are genetic predispositions, psychiatric, psychologic, medical, and socio-economic reasons for impulse control issues. I really don't think anyone wants this for themselves, truly. 'Give me a break' John Stossel; this is a sensitive issue that you are treating very insensitively.

Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
I would like to differentiate between viewing addiction as a moral and ethical issue, and making a moralistic judgment about a person who uses drugs.

When we say a person chooses to engage in addictive behavior, we are not passing judgment on that person insofar as they are a good or bad person; what we mean to say is that they engage in certain behaviors for reasons that are important to them. These reasons may be psychological, social, emotional, cultural and existential.

Saying that a person is not in control of his or her behavior impresses me as decidedly disrespectful of their humanness. People do things and behave in certain ways for reasons; they are not things that are caused by chemicals or brains.

There is plenty of evidence to show that genes have everything to do with our physiological makeup, but that's very different from saying genes cause us to behave in certain ways. After all, we are all genetically programmed to die, but that does not mean that life is a disease.

I firmly believe that in order to be free, a person must accept responsibility for his or her behaviors. A myth perpetuated by people who believe addiction is a disease, is that you can be free if you just say a disease or gene made me do it.

My view on why people use illegal drugs and legal drugs and psychoactive prescription drugs is that they want to change the metaphorical lens of perception; in other words, they want to change the way they view themselves and the world.

In order to understand why someone continues to use these drugs, we must take a look at what it is existentially that the person wants to avoid dealing with.

A mistake in many of our addiction policies today is to focus solely on the availability of the drug, the chemical properties of the drug, and the physiology of the person. As long as we focus on those factors instead of the existential factors, we will never resolve the key issues.

The research consistently shows the best explanations for drug use have to do with the values of a person, their mind set and the environment they live in. People often use drugs in a self-destructive manner as a way of avoiding coping with some experience in life.

What they may need to do is muster up the courage to face some difficult facts about themselves and their existential predicament. When they do that, they are unlikely to rely on drugs as a way of coping with life.

Kate asks:
What about people who have multiple "addictions" or lose one and start another?

Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
As Professor Bruce Alexander at Simon Fraser University has written, there are positive and negative addictions, neither of which have anything to do with not being able to control one's behavior.

Positive addictions are activities we engage in that enhance our sense of well-being; negative addictions are activities we engage in that detract from our sense of well-being.

What we call a positive or negative addiction is something that varies from person to person. The population of people we call addicts is a heterogeneous one, not a homogeneous one. In other words, people use drugs in different ways, for different reasons, with different results. No two people are identical.

The fact that people may transfer their addiction from one activity or substance to another is nothing particularly unusual. Hopefully, people will transfer their negative addictions to positive ones. People engage in multiple negative and positive addictions all the time.

All addiction really means is that you are moving towards something, you are saying "yes" to something, you are consenting or are devoted to some erson or activity.

The idea or meaning of addiction as devotion dates back hundreds and hundreds of years. The idea that addiction means you can't control your behavior came out of the alcohol temperance movement in the early part of the 20th century.

The idea of addiction as involuntary is not only illogical but has been consistently disproved in scientific experiments. There is no such thing as an involuntary behavior.

These experiments are well documented in my book Addiction is a Choice and in numerous writings by my friend and colleague Stanton Peele.

Moderator
Dr. Schaler, do you have any final thoughts?

Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
I think it's important to remember that what we call addiction is not the symptom of a weak will but the expression of what I call an iron will.

In other words, it's not that the person can't change his or her behavior; we need to recognize that what they do is continue to engage in a self-destructive behavior at any cost for reasons that are important to them.

The people we call "drug addicts" are not weak, but strong. What we need to recognize is that they themselves are the higher power.

Moderator
Thanks to Dr. Jeffery Schaler, and all those who joined this chat session.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[Magnus_Grey]

Thats what I've been saying to people for quite some time. Accepting resonsibility for your actions is the only way to break powerfull behaviors I think. Otherwise you will always rationalize relapse.

[Walkaway]

---
> well, mckenna is not alone in
> complaining that revelations
> produced by ketamine are very
> difficult to take back "home"
> with you.
---
This is a matter of taking the correct dose, which is why he should have tried varying his. He admitted that the drug has vastly different effects at different doses, but never used anything but high doses.
---
> sure, his preferences for certain
> substances at times seem arbitrary
---
You mean like when he described LSD as a sopwith camel to the starship that is psiloc(yb)in?
---
> his arguments regarding long history of
> shamanic use
---
Tobacco and Datura both have long histories of use as shamanic drugs.
---
> plants vs man-made stuff
---
Numerous plants are fairly toxic, including the above-named tobacco and datura.
---
> to me this would be a con; to lose
> orientation to the degree that you
> forget you are a human having a
> drug experience...
---
...or Remember that you are the Void having a human experience.
---
> i realize that for other, presumably
> more adventurous folks, this sort of
> thing sounds ideal.
---
For myself, I wouldn't consider it ideal. Each tool is only to be used as appropriate - one does not use a hammer to do the job of a hacksaw, or, hopefully, if one does, one soon gets the help one needs. smile.gif
---
> then again, infinity is a rather
> sizeable place and it might be
> nice to have some "guiderails"
> when exploring...
---
Sure, but at some point, one has to stop using the 'training wheels' and learn to ride.
---
> as for eminem, who knows? good question.
> maybe his experience w/mushrooms is not
> unlike that of the young people you cite
> as an example further down in your post
> who take lsd and merely giggle and stare
> at the visuals without gaining any real
> insight.
---
Wouldn't this tend to suggest that psychedelic drugs do not contain inherent molecular messages?
---
> i've never heard of any and would be
> curious to learn of them.
---
I'll be off-line for a few days, but I'll try to have at least some good pointers for you in this direction by Friday. A friend has the relevant text I need for this.
---
> yeah, but i still have the distinct
> impression that "journeys" came out
> before (earlier in the year than)
> "the scientist". (not sure though...)
---
Perhaps, but Moore had gone to visit Lilly at his house to discuss his ketamine use prior to writing her book. She apparently viewed him as a predecssor on the path. At the time, he described ketamine as a dangerous drug - not unlike some friends of mine describe LSD after some rough experiences.
---
> the fact is, though, that they didn't.
---
You can't downplay the fact that Ram Dass flew a plane while on a psychedelic of some sort, and that this incredibly irresponsible behavior could have caused injury or death not only to himself but to other people as well. Please point me to a story of Lilly on ketamine that is comparable.
---
Ralph Metzner admitted to having come close to suicide on a particularly powerful trip on psiloc(yb)in.
---
> for instance, i don't find the symbolic
> implications of mckenna's, who was
> arguably the most well-known entheogenic
> personality at the time of his death
---
No way. More people have heard of Tim Leary than will ever hear of Terence McKenna. Ditto Ken Kesey.
---
> dying from brain cancer to be particularly
> comforting. (even taking into account that
> his illness and death were not drug-related).
---
Tim Leary and Ken Kesey didn't die of brain cancer. Hell, not even John Lilly died of brain cancer. Perhaps psiloc(yb)in (synchronistically) leads to the development of brain cancer via etheric actions of an indeterminate nature.
---
> yes, but turner was such an experienced
> psychonaut that it gives one pause.
---
In my experience, a lot of 'experienced psychonauts' dispense advice to others about drug use that they don't follow themselves. Witness the gang at Millbrook with their sober emphasis on 'set/setting,' which went often ignored by themselves.
---
> well, that depends on what culture
> you're talking about.
---
If you do a little reading, you'll find that tobacco is the most widely used shamanic drug on the planet, and has an extensive and ancient history of use in this context. I swear, I'm not making it up.
---
> i think you may be oversimplifying
> matters here.
---
Nope.
---
> Nicotiana rustica, from what i understand,
> is the traditional shamanic drug, and not
> nicotiana tabacum.
---
True.
---
> are you referring to the death, damage,
> and dependence caused by 20th century
> casual use by everyday people of
> commercially manufactured cigarettes
> and our culture's other tobacco products?
---
No:
---
"When used for trance-induction purposes, in whatever manner, vast dosages are taken. In Guiana, for instance, shamans' apprentices are obliged to consume liters of tobacco juice, force-fed through a funnel, bringing them 'to the brink of death,' as anthropologist Johannes Wilbert puts it. Among the Tupinmamba of Brazil, shamanic initiates are fed tobacco juice until they pass out and vomit blood. 'South American shamans are known to ingest up to five three-foot-long cigars (while simultaneously chewing tobacco) in the course of a single seance,' Wilbert informs. These kinds of massive doses causes convulsions, seizures, and transitory respiratory failure, causing the 'temporary death' of the shaman. In this state he can have his out-of-body experience and visit the otherworlds of the spirits and ancestors. These doses can also cause 'actual' death - it is as dangerous a shamanic technique as it is an incredibly ancient one."
---
(Devereux, The Long Trip: A Prehistory of Psychedelia, p. 138)
---
> certainly, turner was not a "shaman"
---
That's not my point. My point is that his 'communication' from the 'tryptamine entity' seems to emphasize 'traditional shamanic rules' that, so far as I can tell, don't exist. This would tend towards the conclusion that the 'entity' was a projected portion of Turner's own psyche, warning him in poetic fashion of his own relationship to ketamine.
---
> but who knows what strange, possibly
> sinister things might be acting on
> or happening to our souls when in
> these states?
---
I know of no "soul."
---
> but also recall reading that his
> behaviour was simply obnoxious at
> times
---
This is true for Tim Leary, Terence McKenna, Ken Kesey, Dick Alpert, and pretty much everyone else.
---
> groping an interviewer from 'psychology
> today' magazine
---
Flying a plane while high on a psychedelic...
---
> being totally silent or completely
> nonsensical during esalen seminars...
---
Sometimes no words get the point across better than words.
---
> it saved his life, but didn't it also
> nearly kill him two or three times?
---
Did you forget about Lilly's LSD-triggered brush with death, years prior his ketamine use?
---
> oh, say, next time you're zooming
> through the k-world, be sure to say
> hi to my family members who have
> died from substance abuse problems.
> maybe you can quote jeffrey schaler
> to them.
---
True story: my father shot himself in the head. My father was not the victim of the gun he used to kill himself.
---
> yeah, okay. shall i take up shooting
> heroin in gradually increasing amounts
> over the next year?
---
If that's your Will, sure. Check to make sure first.
---
> might as well, since you seem to be
> implying that getting over any
> addiction i sustain will be a cakewalk.
---
Nope, I'm outright stating that getting over any substance abuse problem is possible. I have been physiologically dependent on nicotine and caffeine in the course of my life. However, I did choose to stop using them. I can also use them occasionally without going back into full-blown "addictive" behavior. It is my choice.
---
> yes, i know the story... the story
> has been passed down precisely
> because it was such an aberration
> in the history of lsd use
---
"Leo is an LSD dealer from the Bay area...Leo is well into his own acid trip of the evening (he says he's been tripping every day for several months) and sits in a makeshift tent."
---
(Rushkoff, Cyberia, p.73)
---
That's not an anti-drug text, btw. It's a fairly glowing report on the "psychedelics and computers" scene in the Bay Area. It was written in 1994.
---
> millbrook was a unique environment,
> crazy times...
---
How do you explain the prolonged drug binges of the Merry Pranksters?
---
> to extrapolate the ram dass lsd binge
> incident and attempt to characterize
> it as being any kind of typical pattern
> of lsd use is nonsensical.
---
Well, when we add up Ram Dass, and Michael Hollingshead (the guy who turned on Leary and the gang to LSD, for god's sake), and the rest of the gang at Millbrook, and the Merry Pranksters, and this acid dealer named "Leo," and Rainbow kids who take thumb and hand prints of LSD powder...one begins to suspect that this sort of thing is not rare, even if it is not common. Dissociatives may be more easily abused in some contexts than other psychedelics, but other psychedelics are NOT free of histories of such abuse. BTW, I once had to cut off a friend's girlfriend from access to 5-MeO-DMT because she was acting like a crackhead.
---
> ... it's still a different story from
> a drug such as k, where the tolerance
> factor is completely absent.
---
Karl Jansen notes that "...there is clear evidence of tolerance..." (Jansen, Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, p. 166).
---
I'll reply to more later; for now it's late, and my girlfriend demands my presence in bed to keep her warm.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[ September 28, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Walkaway ]

[David Orange]

re the jeffrey schaler thing:

first i need to get this out of the way: john stossel is one of the biggest asses on television!! (and there's certainly no shortage of competition in that area) ...& i think stossel is very possibly addicted to hairplugs...

okay, sorry about that...

"Leigh writes:
I think blame is the least important thing here! The important thing is to get over the habit. I've gotten over some addictions with help and some on my own — it's horrible either way, and no matter what, you're bound to blame yourself. Chastising the addict, however, claiming that they are to blame and that it was their intention to ruin their life, is not the confidence-building tool that the person will need to get back on their feet and turn it around. There are genetic predispositions, psychiatric, psychologic, medical, and socio-economic reasons for impulse control issues. I really don't think anyone wants this for themselves, truly. 'Give me a break' John Stossel; this is a sensitive issue that you are treating very insensitively."

i feel that the above quote from "leigh" more eloquently and accurately gets at the truth than does anything which schaler says. schaler is a guy who comes on abc to hawk his book detailing the latest trend in addiction theory. such theories come and go; i think his is particularly glib and insulting to people who are struggling with substance abuse issues. if schaler himself were a recovering addict, then i would be more willing to take his theories to heart. despite his protestations, his theory offers a goldmine for any who wish to demonize addicts and heap all sorts of (counterproductive) blame on their shoulders. i'm sure his book would serve as good inspiration for any politicians wishing to slash funds for treatment programs and those who wish to emphasize incarceration over rehabilitation... "hey, this dr. schaler guy says that 'addiction is a choice', [what a wonderfully glib and meaningless slogan serving to trivialize a very complex issue] and that it's the incredibly strong wills of drug abusers which result in them continuing to abuse drugs...let's throw all these willfully evil bums in jail forever!"

this is a classic stossel story; he is obsessed with the idea that america is a "victim" culture, and so, week after week, he constantly parades various Experts out onto his show to tell us that all we need do is pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, 'get over ourselves', etc. and everything will be fine...meanwhile, the obesity epidemic continues, the drug abuse epidemic continues, etc.

if, in fact, america is a victim culture, perhaps that is because said 'victims' live in a exceedingly toxic culture. it should come as no surprise that people get in trouble with various substances when the environment that they are brought up in is often one of hopelessness and abuse. even the most fortunate of americans live in a culture that is spiritually destitute, based on rabid competition for money, housing, and the other necessities of life, and where the word "community" is perhaps most frequently prefaced with the word "gated". dealing with "the war on terrorism", jobs which do not pay a living wage, being overworked, abysmal medical care systems, and so forth, is enough to make just about anyone want to hit the sauce or the pipe or what have you, in an attempt, however misguided, to seek some balm for the soul.

schaler says:
"we must take a look at what it is existentially that the person wants to avoid dealing with."
and:
"People often use drugs in a self-destructive manner as a way of avoiding coping with some experience in life."

my impression is that the actual situation is the precise opposite of how he is stating it...i reckon that people tend to abuse drugs not to avoid coping with aspects of life, but rather to enable them to cope with it...without the "armor" provided by a particular substance, many aspects of life are simply too overwhelming to the individual to be able to even begin to deal with.

schaler again:
"Positive addictions are activities we engage in that enhance our sense of well-being; negative addictions are activities we engage in that detract from our sense of well-being."

this is sloppily/illogically stated. the good doctor should know better. seeing as how alcohol, heroin, etc. enhance an addict's sense of well-being, then, according to his definition, it would follow that they are 'positive addictions'.

schaler:
"The people we call "drug addicts" are not weak, but strong. What we need to recognize is that they themselves are the higher power."

no doubt there is truth in this quote when viewed from certain angles, but occuring as it does in the context of his other statements, particularly the ones where he emphasizes the "existential" situation of the addict, it reads to me as a convenient way of saying "blame-the-addict"...and while, i recognize that, as magnus writes, the addict needs to take ultimate responsibility for his or her problem, i fear that much of what schaler says may serve as fodder encouraging people to focus Blame! on the person struggling with addiction; while meanwhile, the socio-economic and cultural factors in this country, which i feel play an enormous role in this problem, are ignored.

ahh, psychologists! i know there are some very good ones out there, but...

[David Orange]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Walkaway:
[QB]---
> well, mckenna is not alone in
> complaining that revelations
> produced by ketamine are very
> difficult to take back "home"
> with you.
---
>This is a matter of taking the correct dose, >which is why he should have tried varying his. >He admitted that the drug has vastly different >effects at different doses, but never used >anything but high doses.
---
well, turner, for one, who had extensive experience with k, made the same comment. he reported needing to dose with 2-CB in order to retain memory of the experience.

> sure, his preferences for certain
> substances at times seem arbitrary
---
>You mean like when he described LSD as a sopwith >camel to the starship that is psiloc(yb)in?
---
okay...but he is obviously being hyperbolic there, and trying to make a point re his sincere preference for psilocybin over lsd. for him, lsd left him wandering around his own mind, while psilocybin presented a gateway to the Other.

> his arguments regarding long history of
> shamanic use
---
>Tobacco and Datura both have long histories of >use as shamanic drugs.
---
i can't deny that.

> plants vs man-made stuff
---
>Numerous plants are fairly toxic, including the >above-named tobacco and datura.
---
yup, you're certainly right there.

> to me this would be a con; to lose
> orientation to the degree that you
> forget you are a human having a
> drug experience...
---
>...or Remember that you are the Void having a >human experience.
---
i anticipated you would say that...yeah. point taken.
---
> then again, infinity is a rather
> sizeable place and it might be
> nice to have some "guiderails"
> when exploring...
---
>Sure, but at some point, one has to stop using >the 'training wheels' and learn to ride.

i anticipated that one, too. point taken.
---
> as for eminem, who knows? good question.
> maybe his experience w/mushrooms is not
> unlike that of the young people you cite
> as an example further down in your post
> who take lsd and merely giggle and stare
> at the visuals without gaining any real
> insight.
---
>Wouldn't this tend to suggest that psychedelic >drugs do not contain inherent molecular messages?

perhaps they do, & some are more responsive than others to those messages? ---

> i've never heard of any and would be
> curious to learn of them.
---
>I'll be off-line for a few days, but I'll try to >have at least some good pointers for you in this >direction by Friday. A friend has the relevant >text I need for this.

okay.
---
> yeah, but i still have the distinct
> impression that "journeys" came out
> before (earlier in the year than)
> "the scientist". (not sure though...)
---
>Perhaps, but Moore had gone to visit Lilly at >his house to discuss his ketamine use prior to >writing her book. She apparently viewed him as >a predecssor on the path. At the time, he >described ketamine as a dangerous drug - not >unlike some friends of mine describe LSD after >some rough experiences.

right, okay. "you'd better be damn strong if you're going to play that game"
---
> the fact is, though, that they didn't.
---
>You can't downplay the fact that Ram Dass flew a >plane while on a psychedelic of some sort, and >that this incredibly irresponsible behavior >could have caused injury or death not only to >himself but to other people as well. Please >point me to a story of Lilly on ketamine that is >comparable.

maybe lilly freaking out on the plane, or him riding his bike down the treacherous hilly path while the pcp was kicking in? not on the same level, i know. but still, lilly caused no small amount of suffering to his friends and loved ones the times he almost died...i'm sure his heavy use period was no fun for them.
---
>Ralph Metzner admitted to having come close to >suicide on a particularly powerful trip on >psiloc(yb)in.

interesting, i didn't know that.
---
> for instance, i don't find the symbolic
> implications of mckenna's, who was
> arguably the most well-known entheogenic
> personality at the time of his death
---
>No way. More people have heard of Tim Leary >than will ever hear of Terence McKenna. Ditto >Ken Kesey.

i'm sorry, i wasn't clear with that. i meant contemporary personality/"spokesperson". as in, someone actively on the circuit writing & talking about entheogens. leary had already passed on, and kesey was still alive, but simply a novelist/artist and elder statesman, of sorts, occasionally trotted out for retrospective interviews and the like. (that's not meant as any disrespect to kesey; i probably could have stated that better...)

time will tell, though. perhaps mckenna will eventually be remembered by more people than leary. i am not saying this because i am a true believer in 2012 stuff or anything, but rather because oftentimes people greatly regarded or widely reknown in their own time eventually are forgotten; while more minor players at the time are subsequently re-evaluated and attain greater longevity and recognition in later times. for example melville was obscure at the time of his death but is now one of the major figures in american literature. i know i'm not saying anything you don't already know, but hopefully it's somewhat illustrative of my point.
---
> dying from brain cancer to be particularly
> comforting. (even taking into account that
> his illness and death were not drug-related).
---
>Tim Leary and Ken Kesey didn't die of brain >cancer. Hell, not even John Lilly died of brain >cancer. Perhaps psiloc(yb)in >(synchronistically) leads to the development of >brain cancer via etheric actions of an >indeterminate nature.

ha, yeah...i guess i'm not doing much for my case by bringing up the circumstances of mckenna's death...but, to extend the analogy, gordon wasson didn't die of brain cancer, and mckenna didn't write about receiving messages from ketamine entities telling him that psilocybin is a "frankenstein molecule"
---
> yes, but turner was such an experienced
> psychonaut that it gives one pause.
---
>In my experience, a lot of 'experienced >psychonauts' dispense advice to others about >drug use that they don't follow themselves. >Witness the gang at Millbrook with their sober >emphasis on 'set/setting,' which went often >ignored by themselves.

excellent point.
---
> well, that depends on what culture
> you're talking about.
---
>If you do a little reading, you'll find that >tobacco is the most widely used shamanic drug on >the planet, and has an extensive and ancient >history of use in this context. I swear, I'm >not making it up.

i believe you.

---
> certainly, turner was not a "shaman"
---
>That's not my point. My point is that >his 'communication' from the 'tryptamine entity' >seems to emphasize 'traditional shamanic rules' >that, so far as I can tell, don't exist. This >would tend towards the conclusion that >the 'entity' was a projected portion of Turner's >own psyche, warning him in poetic fashion of his >own relationship to ketamine.

well, you don't have to take the message as worded literally. the message may have symbolic value of importance, and not just betwen turner and his own psyche. he, at any rate, felt it to be important enough to report it in his book.

anyway, aren't we constantly hearing explorers, be they of k, dmt, whatever...tell us that the entities are decidedly not components of one's psyche, but are in fact separate, independent beings? presumably turner was sufficiently well-traveled in these areas to be capable of making such a distinction.
---
> but who knows what strange, possibly
> sinister things might be acting on
> or happening to our souls when in
> these states?
---
>I know of no "soul."

yeah, but i think you know what i'm driving at...some spiritual or metaphysical component to us, that is involved in connecting us to "other worlds"
---
> but also recall reading that his
> behaviour was simply obnoxious at
> times
---
>This is true for Tim Leary, Terence McKenna, Ken >Kesey, Dick Alpert, and pretty much everyone >else.

well, obviously there are degrees of obnoxiousness; from merely being irritating, to completely violating social boundaries/rules of propriety.
---
> groping an interviewer from 'psychology
> today' magazine
---
>Flying a plane while high on a psychedelic...

heh-heh, okay...
---
> being totally silent or completely
> nonsensical during esalen seminars...
---
>Sometimes no words get the point across better >than words.

perhaps, but in most cases i'd say that's pseudo-zen nonsense. especially if we're talking about a smug, k-addled guy hosting a teaching which people have paid significant amounts of money to attend.
---
> it saved his life, but didn't it also
> nearly kill him two or three times?
---
>Did you forget about Lilly's LSD-triggered brush >with death, years prior his ketamine use?

er, yeah. ...okay.
heck, the guy had so many nde's, that sorting them all out gets confusing after a while...

---
> oh, say, next time you're zooming
> through the k-world, be sure to say
> hi to my family members who have
> died from substance abuse problems.
> maybe you can quote jeffrey schaler
> to them.
---
>True story: my father shot himself in the head. >My father was not the victim of the gun he used >to kill himself.

i know i got a little carried away in the above. my apologies for being overly flippant.

i realize you're not fishing for sympathy in bringing this up, but, anyway, my sincerest condolences; it's hard to imagine many things in life more painful/difficult than close ones', and particularly parents' suicides...bah...drag...

...back to the argument, drug addiction/guns/suicide...i'm not sure i see the point you're trying to make. i'm talking about deaths occuring after a long period of involvement with substances...which may have begun as seemingly harmless experimentation before it developed into a more insidious pattern of abuse.

i guess you're trying to say that i'm guilty of demonizing the substances ? and alcohol, say, doesn't kill people in and of itself, but rather the person's choices leading to abuse of the substance do? okay...i accept that. but, somehow we are still circling around each other in regards to the whole addiction issue. perhaps my above response to your schaler post makes my position clearer.

---
> might as well, since you seem to be
> implying that getting over any
> addiction i sustain will be a cakewalk.
---
>Nope, I'm outright stating that getting over any >substance abuse problem is possible. I have >been physiologically dependent on nicotine and >caffeine in the course of my life. However, I >did choose to stop using them. I can also use >them occasionally without going back into full->blown "addictive" behavior. It is my choice.

that's great; caffeine, and especially nicotine, lord knows, are very tough ones...but i feel that you might be unfairly projecting your experiences onto others.
---
> yes, i know the story... the story
> has been passed down precisely
> because it was such an aberration
> in the history of lsd use
---
>"Leo is an LSD dealer from the Bay area...Leo is >well into his own acid trip of the evening (he >says he's been tripping every day for several >months) and sits in a makeshift tent."
---
>(Rushkoff, Cyberia, p.73)
---
>That's not an anti-drug text, btw. It's a >fairly glowing report on the "psychedelics and >computers" scene in the Bay Area. It was >written in 1994.

i read that book, and some of the passages about psychedelics raised flags for me. i think in some instances, either people were telling tall tales to rushkoff, or he was "embellishing" from his own end.
---
>...Well, when we add up Ram Dass, and Michael >Hollingshead (the guy who turned on Leary and >the gang to LSD, for god's sake), and the rest >of the gang at Millbrook, and the Merry >Pranksters, and this acid dealer named "Leo," >and Rainbow kids who take thumb and hand prints >of LSD powder...one begins to suspect that this >sort of thing is not rare, even if it is not >common.

okay. your point is well taken. i guess i underestimated (or forgot) the foolhardiness?courage?stupidity? of many lsd users.

>...BTW, I once had to cut off a friend's >girlfriend from access to 5-MeO-DMT because she >was acting like a crackhead.

good lord!...wow... :eek:
---
>I'll reply to more later; for now it's late, and >my girlfriend demands my presence in bed to keep >her warm.

good man! smile.gif

well, if this were a high school debate, i'm afraid i'd be getting my ass kicked! :D nice to be learning some stuff, even if it's somewhat painful to the ol' ego!

i'm glad you've been responding so painstakingly; obviously even in this "information age" there remain boatloads of myths and misinformation regarding psychedelics.

& i know i've been cruel re lilly...but if he was/is truly an "extraterrestrial zen master" or something of that order, then i'm sure he would laugh it all off...and have compassion for my petty snarkiness.

take care.
---

[Walkaway]

---
>> Yes, really. Death due to behavioral
>> toxicity subsequent to LSD ingestion
>> has been well-documented.
---
> i've never heard of any and would be
> curious to learn of them.
---
Here's one recent case:
---
LSD Death (http://www.10nbc.com/news.asp?template=item&story_id=8950)
---
> but when we're dealing in the area of
> psychedelics, synchronicity undeniably
> comes into play. it becomes harder
> to view things as merely being
> "accidents" or "luck".
---
So, then, perhaps the dissociative spirits simply like John Lilly and me better than Marcia Moore and D.M. Turner?
---
> yes, on some scale, but it does
> not carry the same symbolic import
> as someone who has a prominent
> public profile.
---
I bet if I ask a hundred random people who Marcia Moore or D.M. Turner were, way less than 5% even get one correct.
---
> i guess it is just me, but the lesson
> i got from these two incidents was not
> "c'mon down, everybody and get on
> board the k train!"
---
The lesson I got from these incidents was not to take dissociatives in high doses in extreme cold and/or near water.
---
> it's remarkable that you've quoted
> and commented at length upon ram
> dass' follies while tripping
---
I did this to counteract this common public construction of John Lilly as some sort of psychedelic buffoon whose behavior was more outlandish than anyone else's. I can cite stories from and about Tim Leary, Ken Kesey, Sasha and Anne Shulgin, and many others that would seem equally as foolish as some of Lilly's more inappropriate behavior, and yet these incidents are not widely discussed. My point is not that Ram Dass is bad - he is only human, and has done a superb job at playing out his own incarnation. I found Be Here Now to be absolutely indispensable for a few years, and it really helped jump-start my yoga and meditation practice after a lapse of years. My point is not "Ram Dass was a crazy fool, don't listen to anything he said," but rather to get you to realize that Ram Dass should be admired precisely because he is not a psychedelic superhero, but rather a human being doing his best to evolve. Lilly gets singled out in some sort of bizarre justification of everyone else's behavior ("Oh, at least we're not as bad as John"), and to me, it stinks.
---
> but have not breathed a word of the
> fact that lilly nearly died several
> times as a direct result of his k
> (and in one instance, pcp) explorations.
---
Indirect results, for the most part. Direct results would be overdoses - there was one of those, when he took 40 milligrams of PCP.
---
> i mean, how many messages does one
> need to get?
---
He stopped using ketamine for several years after being instructed to by his guardian beings.
---
> talk about "luck"! by what stretch
> of miracle did he manage to keep
> returning to the planet?
---
His guardian beings from ECCO told him he wasn't done learning yet. {shrug}
---
> yeah, but ram dass is still in our world.
---
John Lilly lived to a ripe old age, and died of natural causes. Tim Leary, who in later years became an enthusiastic user of ketamine, also did not die a ketamine related death. James Kent, author of two excellent articles on ketamine use that are available at Erowid, appears to be alive and well. My last doctor's check-up revealed no problems (and that included a metabolic panel).
---
> tragically, moore and turner aren't.
---
It is tragic, yes, but no more so than when someone dies in an automobile accident while performing an outrageous stunt. Their reckless behavior leaves behind a warning as the proper limits of dissociative use for subsequent travelers.
---
> maybe it's not so tragic from one
> standpoint, if you are in a position
> to take to heart the lessons that
> k seems to impart regarding life/death
> issues...
---
At least some users are of the opinion that D.M. Turner chose to die. Many persons using dissociatives and other psychedelics report encountering a 'death space' wherein it seems as though they have the choice as to whether or not to live or die, to stay here in this realm or to shed this mortal coil and go into more rarified realms for further education. I have encountered such an experience myself. I chose to come back. I cannot honestly say what would have happened had I not made that choice. I am not arguing that this IS what happened, but I am asking you to think a bit more multi-dimensionally about subjects on which you (and I) have an unfortunately limited amount of worthwhile data.
---
> but turner's family, for one, do not
> have the benefit of profound k
> experiences
---
I have had deep divisions within my own family regarding my use of LSD, marijuana, and DXM. Lacking the profound experiences I have had via these substances, my family sees only the image of me going along to a D.M. Turner-style demise (and they don't even know who D.M. Turner was).
---
> and are unable to get their son back.
---
Should the families of automobile fatalities lobby for the abolition of cars, or strict limitation on their use?
---
> and moore's lover and co-author
> alltounian, who did have experience
> with k, had negative things to
> say about it many years following
> moore's death...
---
If you read carefully, he also had negative things to say about it prior to Moore's death. His own ambivalence toward the drug transformed into outright hatred following Moore's death. This is understandable, and forgivable. At the same time, one can find similar quotes from ex-LSD users, so I'm not sure what value I find in his statements, beyond "Be careful that this shit doesn't fuck you the fuck up."
---
> calling it a "seductress, not a goddess"
---
Both extremes represent projections of human fantasies on to a molecule.
---
> certainly, turner was not a "shaman"
---
I dunno about that.
---
> i'm not sure who, if anyone, would be
> considered to be shamans in our culture
---
I'm sort of a shaman, although I fulfill the classical function in a completely modern way, one which is in essential sympathy, but not necessarily outward conformance, with the primitive religious impulse in man as manifested historically.
---
> if one goes by the traditional
> definition of one who journeys
> to other worlds, and then heals
> members' of the tribe/culture's diseases...
> & negotiates with the spirits and so forth,
> for the benefit of the culture.
---
I've done all that, though that certainly doesn't mean much. Anyone can be a (mok)shaman. The trick is being a good one.
---
> i don't think any of this negates
> possible value in the message
> communicated to turner...
---
The message communicated to Turner is not detailed very specifically, and I am content to view it as a message from Turner's own psyche about his own relationship to ketamine. I think there is a great deal of value in deciphering that the message indicates that doing way too much K is a really, really bad idea.
---
> perhaps k is a dubious compound on
> some metaphysical level, one that's
> best approached by humans, if at all,
> with extreme caution.
---
I feel that the dissociatives are harder to use profitably than substances such as psiloc(yb)in. This can perhaps be best illustrated by a metaphor employed by a brilliant friend and sometimes co-conspirator of mine:
---
"Mushrooms are like a Macintosh OS, and DXM is like Linux. Sure, the Mac looks prettier, it's easier to interface with, it's harder to get in over your head...but if you know what you're doing with Linux, it's spectacular."
---
I feel that dissociatives tend to dissolve portions of the individual ego while leaving other portions relatively intact - in a sense, one is left in the driver's seat with a dissociative experience, and, unfortunately, many people crash rather badly. In fact, I often mentally conceive of DXM as precisely a vehicle for consciousness change in desired directions - it can take me from any state of consciousness to any other on the spectrum, given appropriate dose, set, and setting. Many people use the state of profound metaprogramability conferred by dissociatives to veg and listen to horrible, nihilistic music, or engage in various ego-games, thus ballooning aspects of their ego out of proportion... What it all comes down to is that in the hands of a properly focused, dedicated explorer, these substances can be absolutely profound tools, and in the hands of the ignorant, these substances can be deadly. The problem isn't with dissociatives, the problem is with the mental set of the people using them.
---
> the "zen master" thing is a hoary
> overused excuse, perenially dragged
> out to justify socially unacceptable
> or unseemly behaviour by people who
> are supposedly privy to "spiritual"
> insights that the rest of us aren't.
---
Lilly never claimed to be privy to anything that other people weren't, and always shared his lab notes. BTW, he recognized the inappropriate nature of his actions with the interviewer, and candidly discussed them in his autobiography when he didn't have to do so. This bespeaks a dedication to honesty in reporting the effects he experienced.
---
> i don't find him in interviews to be
> engaging in "ruthless destruction"
> of "unfounded assumptions"; but
> simply deluded, flaky, and perhaps
> convinced of the infallibility of
> his ideas.
---
He states repeatedly that he doesn't believe in anything.
---
> i have great respect for the zen buddhist
> tradition, but his discourse strikes me as
> being "dimestore zen", as in, "i can say
> whatever i want to say, and it doesn't
> really matter if it's true or false,
> because such is the nature of reality"
> kind of bullsh*t.
---
I think you need to read again. Each of his answers is appropriate to the question, and leads into new areas of thought and reflection.
---
> from my reading, you're giving him way
> too much credit
---
I think you're giving him way too little credit. This is the man that the New York Times once referred to as a walking one man syllabus on Western Civilization. Whatever his excesses, he did far more original scientific work in more fields than anyone else in the psychedelic community, and I don't think he gets the respect he deserves.
---
> in stating that he was making reference
> to a "caricature of drug addiction as
> popularly conceived".
---
The caricature is that you end up in the ghetto jonesing for drugs.
---
> i've read the interview several times
> over the years, and it's difficult for
> me to read it and not come away with
> the idea that he is making, at worst,
> some backhanded racial slur
---
Unlikely in the extreme.
---
> or at best, a thoughtless, most
> unsympathetic putdown of those
> who struggle with genuine and
> very serious substance abuse
> problems.
---
I think you're being overly sensitive.
---
> the "or something" part doesn't clue
> me into the fact that he is making
> a joke particularly; rather it seems
> characteristic of much of the
> interview: lots of poorly thought-out,
> sloppily tossed-off comments.
---
They're excellently thought out, just not elaborately and sometimes pointlessly wordy like McKenna's rants. Again, I have never seen a "self-dribbling Faberge egg on the rebound."
---
> i wonder if lilly got this idea from sagan...
---
Maybe Sagan got it from Lilly? Or maybe the idea is just sensible.
---
> at any rate, coke is a far cry from
> cannabis, so i find it curious that
> sagan would make this odd connection.
---
It is not too odd to think that an introspective sort of person might find cocaine useful for introspection. I certainly found cocaine, amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, methamphetamine, and methylphenidate to work excellently for this purpose.
---
> i have never heard anyone say much
> of anything good about cocaine...
---
Well, essentially, it's a low-tech stimulant, far outclassed by the various amphetamines (in my opinion). That said, I think these substances are best suited to extremely occasional oral use in moderate doses (people who shoot an 8 ball a day get what they're asking for). Given that they're illegal for anyone who doesn't have a doctor's prescription, I recommend everyone stay far, far away.
---
> i don't doubt that it has been of
> assistance in helping people with
> creative/intellectual endeavors by
> providing stamina and temporarily
> staving off fatigue, hunger, etc.
> thus allowing one to work for long
> periods without distraction, much
> as other stimulants such as caffeine,
> amphetamines, or even nicotine.
---
I have had experiences that I would consider to be quite definitely 'psychedelic' while using amphetamines, methylphenidate, cocaine, and, yes, nicotine.
---
> but i find it hard to swallow the idea
> that it "magically" (no, not lilly's
> word, but my own, to emphasize how
> incredulous i find the idea) gave
> freud insights into the subconscious
> and so forth.
---
What Lilly said is that Freud's work on psychoanalysis was based on his cocaine use. He didn't say that this work was necessarily 100% correct, or that it wasn't open to revision.
---
> from what i understand, it mostly pumps
> up the freudian ego, and suppresses the
> voice of the superego.
---
And the Freudian Ego, good ole' circuit III, is the birthing ground of the semantic map-making and grid-laying such as we find in psychoanalysis...curious...
---
> i've heard coke described as the "id"
> drug-- hence i find it hard to believe
> that it would be responsible for deep
> insights into the psyche.
---
"It is not the horse, but the pale rider."
---
> anyway, so much of freud's theories are
> rubbish...penis envy, anyone? the
> oedipal myth? the anal, oral, etc.
> stages?
---
Have you ever heard someone on cocaine spew forth bullshit? Have you ever been cornered by someone on a lot of coke while at a party? Have you ever been the person on coke doing the cornering?
---
> "i took cocaine to explore freud's
> theories about sexuality" yeah, me
> too! and then i started smoking crack
> to explore jung's theories about
> individuation.
---
I took diphenhydramine to explore the worldview of the European with cults, some strains of Hinduisn/Buddhism, and some varieties of native shamanism. What is so incredible about this claim?
---
> i take with a grain of salt what lilly
> says here
---
It seems to me that you're overly critical of Lilly and underly skeptical of McKenna.
---
> yeah, no surprise there; he's one of
> the people that they interviewed in
> a book that they are trying to sell.
---
They interviewed him becase they both found him to be intellectually/spiritually inspiring, and they appear to have found him agreeable. Your second-hand interpretation of their intentions does not strike me as overly plausible.
---
> what are they going to say? "we found
> him to be both full of dodgy ideas
> and flaky" and resembling "a
> self-deluded septugenarian who's taken
> one too many trips to the k-hole?"
---
If they'd found Lilly tht disquieting, no doubt they would simply have not included the interview. Things get cut from articles and books all the time, you know.
---
> "playful and profound" could be
> euphemistic for, "he seems to be
> full of sh*t, but charmingly, he
> doesn't even believe in his own
> sh*t"...
---
Or it could be representative of, "He didn't seem to be worried aobut sounding like a real honest to God intellectual, and didn't seem to be to interested in 'Gee Bang Gee Whiz Gee Golly' discussions of his trips, but made us momentarily reconsider deep-seated assumptions through his unorthodox manner of response."
---
> and "extraterrestrial zen master" sounds
> like a new ager's projections of their
> yoda fantasies onto somebody.
---
It sounds to me like someone paying homage to a person they met who displayed deep spiritual insight.
---
> (so what's the point? he may as well
> have been shooting heroin all those
> years; seems to have been for ends
> just as narcissstic/solipsistic)
---
Upon careful consideration, I cannot agree. Opioid abuse strikes me as utterly more trivial than use of dissociatives at any frequency, as one is simply wrapping up in a blanket of bliss and turning off the world. Relaxing, sure. Useful, no. Productive of compassion, no. Some rare individuals seem to get fully psychedelic effects from opiates, and I applaud them, but in the main these compounds seem best confined to extremely occasional nights of vegetating. I find that dissociatives inspire a joy in being human in me, and inspire compassion in me for my fellow human beings. I cannot say this of opiates. If I abuse dissociatives, I don't feel quite human anymore, but this also is true for LSD, 5-MeO-DMT, and a number of other drugs besides.
---
> myself, i see little wisdom at all
> expressed by him in the interview.
> if by "simultaneously well-experienced
> in alternate states of being" you mean,
> he was able, (as he talks about at a
> rather confusing juncture in the interview)
---
I found the juncture to be perfectly easy to understand.
---
> to realize that while tripping on k he
> was inside of a soap opera on television,
> and not talking to extraterrestrials,
> all i have to say is wow...great for him.
> what a boon to humanity.
---
The interviewers asked if he thought the brain functioned as a transceiver. He replied by asking if they'd ever seen a TV show on ketamine. The interviewer replied that he'd seen such shows, 'with commercials even.' Lilly replied that he thought that ketamine made the brain more sensitive to microwave transmissions, and that it is important to realize that material like this may be affecting us at a subconscious level at all times. Even if one doesn't buy it, it's interested speculation to contemplate on while stoned.
---
> maybe that means by that point he
> had learned to stop calling the
> president of the u.s. on the phone
> to warn him of imminent takeovers
> of humanity by solid-state entities.
---
As if a guy talking about elves and the end of the world is any better?
---
> he doth protest too much??
---
Again, he actually met Lilly, and you did not.
---
> "straight-laced" may not be apt, but
> nor would i concur that he was "weird
> as hell".
---
He had to be convinced not to hammer electrodes into his skull. He was convinced he was an extraterrestrial attached to a human being named 'John.' These were years prior to his ketamine use.
---
> mckenna speculates on some wild ideas,
> some of which do not appear to hold up,
> but they are always sophisticatedly,
> brilliantly, and entertainingly presented.
---
They are entertaining stoned bullshitting. McKenna was no horseshitter.
---
> for what it's worth, as i'm sure you
> know, many others have reported seeing
> the "machine elves".
---
Set/setting.
---
> i think he demonstrates through his
> talks and writings that he is
> absolutely grounded
---
I take rather the opposite impression. I find his mycological obsession to be utterly preposterous. The proposition that everything best about humanity originated in drug use is nothing more than a silly stoned fantasy, and frankly, I find it demeaning to the human capacity for invention. Religion, for instance, was far more likely to develop out of a variety of non-ordinary experiences, of which drugs are one set of means. Other probable catalysts would include sleep deprivation, fasting, social isolation, fever delirium, and dreams (among other possibilities). It's just that htere's too narrow of a focus on "drugs drugs drugs," and not enough on where they lead.
---
> and more than coherent
---
I consider the ranting about elves to be entertaining, but hardly coherent.
---
> in fact, i'll say it again, he's brilliant.
> his writing surely outshines that of others
> working in similar territory.
---
I find Lilly and Leary to be more to my tastes.
---
> reading mckenna is a sheer delight.
---
He was a pretty good bullshitter, even if the content sometimes approached zero.
---
> shulgin, well, the narrative sections
> of pikhal and tikhal are a disappointing
> yawn.
---
I thought some of them were damned funny, and others inexpressibly moving. Overall, they're not too literaily polished, but what do you expect? He's a scientist.
---
> d.m. turner's prose was remarkably
> unremarkable, considering the
> fantastic subject matter.
---
He wanted to give spare descriptions of each compound. Overly ornate descriptions of psychedelic effects could take volumes and volumes.
---
> i think only dale pendell comes close to
> mckenna in terms of translating the
> beyond-poetry of the enthogenic experience
> into prose...
---
I don't find Pendell's work to be paticularly inspiring. Sometimes it shines.
---
> but of course i would be remiss to neglect
> mentioning daniel p's work; BOtH is a
> more-than admirable and exciting entry
> into the field.
---
It is certainly not more seminal than Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer or Simulations of God.
---
> lilly, on the other hand, didn't seem
> to be able to complete his books
---
Hmm...he wrote a number of them, on a variety of subjects (i.e., he wasan't just a drug writer). No one-trick pony, Mr. Lilly. I always find it amusing when Robert Anton Wilson brags about having written 40 books when so many of them are just repetitions of the same idea he used in numerous 'other' books. After a while, they all blend in together.
---
> & what books he did get out there have
> an anemic quality that is curious in
> light of the topic at hand...
---
Lilly was concerned with accurate reporting and scientific analysis, not "Gee Bang Gee Whiz Gee Golly" exclamations of how hard he'd tripped.
---
> and in interviews he comes across as flaky
---
Again, I just don't think he gave a shit.
---
> i'm very curious to know what you
> find "distasteful" in regard to
> those aspects of his work.
---
I find the term 'hallucination' to be intellectually shallow. These aren't 'hallucinations,' and calling them that to the populace is just as bad as trying to communicate ego death by saying, "I saw God." The term may (very, very loosely) 'fit,' but it invites more misunderstanding than it accomplishes real communication. As for entity contact, as a Buddhist, I take the view that entities may have interesting trivia to tell me, but are not going to be instrumental in Liberation.
---
> man, i only wish you were right
> about that one.
---
I am. Statistically, most people who experiment with drugs stop doing so on their own.
---
> so many people i can think of would
> still be alive right now...or would
> not still be struggling in the
> undertow after so many years.
---
In the end, we are no more than our deeds. Rather than hopes of happiness, somewhere, somehow, realize that the day of salvation is now - and that godly grace exempts us from work.
---
> gee, that doesn't sound like classic
> "denial" talk of an "addict" or
> anything...
---
If you want to get me started on a general criticism of NA/AA and their entire bullshit system of self-consistent categories, just say the word.
---
> and didn't he stop at that point only
> because his sources of k refused to
> continue supplying him after observing
> his progressively disturbing behavior?
> or because he almost died after trying
> to do something he shouldn't have been
> doing on k?
---
No, he stopped because his guardian spirits told him to stop.
---
> again, it could be argued that this
> is cliche addict behavior of saying
> "go away, leave me alone...my
> drinking/drugging patterns are not
> a problem/none of your business"...
---
What if someone's family was convinced they had an "LSD abuse" problem becuase they used it twice a month? Would you support the family's intervention?
---
> he's so damn glib and convinced of his
> righteousness.
---
Hmm, sounds like someone else I know. ;)
---
> many of us have felt disappointed at
> being dragged back down to mundane
> "reality" after being in blissful
> entheogen-induced states
---
Yes, and this seems to be a primary motivating factor in dissociative abuse. It also seems to lead to high frequency use of DMT, DPT, 5-MeO-DMT, and various other drugs.
---
> but this is a far cry from the body
> screaming out to have a particular
> receptor fed when depleted of a
> chemical it's become habituated to...
---
This has not been demonstrated for the dissociatives.
---
> or one that we require to keep from
> feeling like a nervous wreck or
> suicidally depressed.
---
I've seen quotes from LSD users to the effect that they don't feel alive except when they're on acid.
---
> again, i maintain that the complicated
> profile and unpredictable effects of lsd
> and similar substances make it
> undesirable for the average person to
> repeat the experience with the regularity
> of other drugs commonly characterized as
> having addictive potential.
---
I maintain that the average person, upon taking a high dose of a dissociative, will be horrified and never wish to repeat the experience.
---
> let's not forget that lsd, much like your
> wonder drug dxm
---
DXM is not my wonder drug. If only I had the patents on that one... Jesus, that'd be sweet.
---
> has been explored in the past as a
> means of overcoming addiction to
> other substances.
---
LSD lacks specific pharmacological effects on physiological drug dependence that are exerted by DXM. That said, what most 'addicts' need more than anything else is a good smack across the back of the head, and LSD can most certainly provide that.
---
> that is your experience, i suppose
---
Yes, it is. I found myself far more compulsively driven to dose LSD than DXM when first introduced to both. Both LSD and DXM (or ketamine) can be placed into the 'overvaluation domain' - a term coined by Lilly which denotes a state in which experiences catalyzed by certain chemicals are valued more than consensual experiences in the normal waking state, with a concurrent loss of social integration.
---
> but i think what these people i'm
> referring to are talking about is
> the escapist nature of ketamine
> which accompanies its disassociative
> properties.
---
The dissociatives are certainly far more reliably blissful than LSD. However, panic attacks cannot be excluded, and beyond this, many people find the psychological effects to be utterly unpleasant.
---
> apparently it can be very tempting
---
For some people.
---
> to drift off and enjoy the custom-
> built "virtual realities" and
> disconnection from earthbound
> body-based existence that k
> provides...
---
Actually, one criticism of mine in relation to McKenna would be his preference for high doses always over low doses with psychedelics. I think this is a juvenile macho attitude. I do not think that McKenna held up very well at all under the influence of psycholytic doses of various psychedelics. "Psychoanalysis" was found by him to be "grating" - he wanted the "transcendental Other," not all this mucking about in his personal mess. It seems to me that many people use psychedelics in a similar fashion - as a means of reaching wonderfully abstracted spiritual states that don't have much grounding in the day-to-day movements of their lives, and a consequent dissatisfaction with each breath and each moment. (I tend to be of the opinion that each movement is boundless bliss) I don't think it's too hard to eat a high dose of 'shrooms, "trip balls," and escape reality for an afternoon. I've seen more than one stupid teenager do it, and it pained me to watch it happen. It crushed my psychedelic idealism right out of me.
---
> as has been often stated, lsd and the
> like forces one into a deeper
> confrontation of reality with all
> of its unpleasantness (unpleasantness
> which is in fact often amplified)
> rather than allowing for a true "escape".
---
I have seen people who could play fantastic games with acid, negotiating with it so that, even at high doses, it was nothing more than a stimulating, glowy fun-time. Nothing too serious, nothing too profound... I saw these people skirt the edge of ego death a few times, and it scared them shitless - not at the time, but afterward. An actual philosophical reorientation, a complete re-thinking of my life from the ground up? Shucks, I was just in it for the visuals.
---
>> ...First, LSD was tested in low daily
>> maintenance doses (that do not generate
>> tolerance) as an anti-depressant.
---
> cool! sign me up!
---
How is this significantly different from someone taking low doses of ketamine daily to maintain a continual (yet operational) level of dissociation? DXM exhibits potent activity on serotonin re-uptake, and thus conceivably could exert powerful anti-depressant effects if taken in moderate doses (1-2 mg/kg) daily. Would you consider this 'troubling dissociative abuse' or a 'therapeutic modality of use?'
---
> well, here we differ on definitions.
> i have been using the term "classic
> psychedelics" to refer to lsd,
> mescaline, psilocybin...
---
"At present, a definition of psychedelics, acceptable to the majority of qualified experts, does not exist. No one has attempted a denotational or enumerative description of these substances; the class of psychedelics, though theoretically finite, has been explored only to a small extent and often with controversial results. There seems to be agreement about the 'recognition' of LSD, mescaline and derivatives such as TMA, psilocybin (the chief active ingredient of the magic or sacred mushroom of Mexico) as well as psilocin, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), Ditran (or JB 329) Sernyl (or phencyclidine), DET, peyote buttons, and morning glory seeds."
---
(Bates, Psychedelics and the Law, from the Psychedelic Review, published 1964)
---
> pcp and ketamine have certainly been
> acknowleged to have so-called
> "psychedelic" properties for decades...
---
"Known as angel dust in the 1970s, PCP, or phencyclidine, gave users superhuman strength and a numbing calm. But the addictive, psychedelic drug also made many paranoid, violent and completely out of touch with reality; they leapt off roofs and broke out of handcuffs with their bare hands."
---link (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1313/a03.html)
---
Ketamine is also commonly referred to as a psychedelic drug:
---
The Adventure of Self-Discovery, by Stanislav Grof (pp. 295-6). Ketamine: Dreams and Realities by Karl Jansen (pp. 40-2). Jansen's book is published by MAPS, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelics Studies. Psychedelics Encyclopedia, by Peter Stafford (third edition, III- 25). Pihkal, by Ann and Sasha Shulgin (p. 963). Design for Dying, Tim Leary and R.U. Sirius (p. 128). Tim Leary also referred to PCP as a psychedelic drug on p. 45 of The Politics
of Ecstasy. The Scientist, John Lilly (third edition, p. xv).
---
> but generally they are placed in
> a seperate category from lsd and
> the like, due to their profound
> disassociative affects.
---
Yes, but both are still classed as psychedelics. From Grilly, Drugs and Human Behavior, third edition:
---
"What does one call a class of drugs taken primarily because of their ability to elicit in normal individuals such alterations as visual or auditory hallucinations, depersonalization, perceptual disturbances, and disturbances of thought processes at doses that exert minimal changes in other bodily functions? Before we answer this question, note that both the quantitative and the qualitative effects of these
drugs are heavily dependent on the dose. Lower doses may alter mood and thought content with minimal sensory disturbances; somewhat higher doses may induce clear perceptual distortions without inducing true hallucinations (strongly experienced false perceptions that have a compulsive sense of the reality of the object but that have no relevant or adequate stimuli for their induction); and higher doses may actually induce true hallucinations. Common examples of such drugs with which you may be familiar are LSD, mescaline, and marijuana.
"Since hallucinations are one of the more striking symptoms associated with such drugs, many authors commonly refer to this class of drugs as hallucinogens. Others prefer to use the term psychotomimetic (literally psychosis-mimicking) or psychotogenic (for psychosis-generating) because these drugs induce actual hallucinations only at the higher doses, whereas with the lower doses some of the fundamental characteristics of psychosis are still evidenced (such as gross distortion or disorganization of a person's mental capacity, affective response, and capacity to recognize reality, communicate, and relate to others). However, these two terms are also somewhat inappropriate. First, numerous drugs referred to in this fashion rarely induce a condition that mimics the types of psychoses naturally found in humans - namely, schizophrenia and mania. Second, doses of some drugs that do mimic natural psychotic states, such as large doses of cocaine and amphetamine, are not voluntarily taken for this expressed purpose. The term psychedelic (for mind-expanding, -manifesting, -clarifying, or -revealing) has also been applied to these drugs, but the functional meaning of this term is unclear. Philosophers and psychologists have grappled for years with the question of what the mind is or what it means. So what do we mean when we say it is expanded? Perhaps a new term should be coined for these drugs, but I will not be coining a new one here. For the purposes of this book, I will refer to them as psychotomimetic/psychedelic/hallucinogenic substances, or simply P/P/Hs."
---
(pp. 242-3)
---
"Although P/P/Hs are used occasionally in a clinical context, the preponderant use of these substances is recreational. There are four
major classes of P/P/Hs:

"1. The monoamine-related substances, whose molecular structures and biochemical activity suggest that their effects are mediated by alterations in the activity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the CNS.

2. The cannabinoids, derivatives of the Cannabis sativa (marijuana) plant or synthetic analogues.

3. Anticholinergics, which block acetylcholine activity in the brain.

4. Dissociative anesthetics, which are analgesic-anesthetic drugs with P/P/H effects.

"Another P/P/H drug that will be discussed in this chapter is ibogaine - a drug with pharmacological properties so unique that it doesn't fit into any of the four classes but shares some properties with at least two of them."
---
(p. 243)
---
>> Smoking pot daily is doubtless much
>> worse for one's lung than daily
>> ketamine use.
---
> well, yeah, but that's because one
> doesn't smoke k.
---
My point was that anyone who claims to be an advocate of the responsible use of drugs who doesn't warn of the dangers specific to each chemical as commonly used is being disingenous.
---
> says you, who i take to be an
> enthusiastic user
---
I find dissociatives to be particularly empowering compounds spiritually, but I am not precisely enthusiastic in their use. I do not recommend them to beginners, for instance. I think that it is easy to get in way over one's head very fast with these compounds, even if using relatively low supposedly 'recreational' doses. This is one reason why the use of ketamine at clubs concerns me so greatly.
---
> okay. but i'm not putting down datura
> wholesale, just trying to puncture a
> hole in what i'm reading as your
> implication that different substances
> are essentially neutral tools.
---
You can hurt yourself with a saw, but a saw is still an essentially neutral tool.
---
> no, i can't accept that last bit. some
> molecules have more potential for
> psychological dependence in humans
> than others.
---
You mean, substances that people tend to enjoy more?
---
> take a substance like cocaine, which
> causes, a profound flood of pleasure-
> causing/reward-based chemicals to be
> released in humans. that's going to
> tend to lead to problems in human use.
---
No one would prostitute themselves for a fix of cocaine if cocaine were cheap, legal, and pure.
---
> caffeine, on the other hand, which may
> provide a mild experience of pleasure...
---
Balzac certainly did not find it mild.
---
> well, people are not going to be
> prostituting themselves if they
> can't get their daily cup of coffee...
---
I dunno about that. Caffeine came close to being a prohibited drug in this country, and I wonder what a different social construction might have done for its use. I can imagine some serious java drinkers I know who would do some pretty illegal things to get caffeine were it illicit and expensive.
---
> just suffering a headache.
---
Cocaine 'withdrawal' doesn't even cause headaches.
---
> interesting. but do these studies
> have much value outside of a
> controlled lab experiment?
---
Yes. They demonstrate that expectation plays a large role in the user's subjective effects.
---
>> ...DXM has been used "recreationally"
>> as a psychedelic drug for almost as
>> long as LSD.
---
> wow. did not know that.
---
"I wondered what he would say if I asked him for $22 worth of Romilar and a tank of nitrous oxide. Probably he would have sold it to me. Why not? Free enterprise..."
---
(Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, p. 101, second vintage books edition 1998)
---
"'This engine runs on LSD and peyote, and it also runs on booze and heroin and sniffing gasoline and cocaine and Romilar...'"
---
(Gaskin, Haight Ashbury Flashbacks, p. 123)
---
Thompson's book was written in 1971, and Gaskin's in 1980. Gaskin's book concerns recollections of living in Haight Ashbury during the late 1960s (the above quote was pronounced by a friend of his, not Mr. Gaskin himself).
---
> i guess when i look at these websites
> i just worry about curious young
> people's welfare.
---
Me too. That's why I try to spread good information.
---
> in short, i think lilly generally
> comes off as a fool and overly glib
---
I think he comes across as light-hearted and unconcerned with taking himself or anything else seriously.
---
> i think your take on "addiction",
> particularly the psychological aspect,
> is glossing over the realities
---
No, it is uncovering them for all to see - only by claiming our existential responsibility and becoming Awake can we make any genuine existence for ourselves. We can all make excuses based on environment and heredity and demons and any number of other things...but eventually, we just have to take responsibility for our own movies, and start writing the script.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[ October 07, 2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Walkaway ]

[David Orange]

wow, thanks again. much food for thought...this has been a productive dialogue, at least for me.

Originally posted by Walkaway:
---
---
>Here's one recent case:
---
LSD Death (http://www.10nbc.com/news.asp?template=item&story_id=8950)

okay.

that reminds me that people have killed while 'under the influence' of lsd, too...like the "say you love satan" case in long island in the early '80's...the kids were supposedly on mescaline when they stabbed another kid to death, (i'm sure it was actually lsd).
------
---
>I bet if I ask a hundred random people who >Marcia Moore or D.M. Turner were, way less than >5% even get one correct.

right, of course...but if you were to consider a random sampling of 'serious' entheogenic researchers; people who actually bother to pick up a book or two before trying these substances, then the percentage would be pretty close to 100. (i hope).
---
---
> it's remarkable that you've quoted
> and commented at length upon ram
> dass' follies while tripping
---
>I did this to counteract this common public >construction of John Lilly as some sort of >psychedelic buffoon whose behavior was more >outlandish than anyone else's. I can cite >stories from and about Tim Leary, Ken Kesey, >Sasha and Anne Shulgin, and many others that >would seem equally as foolish as some of Lilly's >more inappropriate behavior, and yet these >incidents are not widely discussed. My point is >not that Ram Dass is bad - he is only human, and >has done a superb job at playing out his own >incarnation. I found Be Here Now to be >absolutely indispensable for a few years, and it >really helped jump-start my yoga and meditation >practice after a lapse of years. My point is >not "Ram Dass was a crazy fool, don't listen to >anything he said," but rather to get you to >realize that Ram Dass should be admired >precisely because he is not a psychedelic >superhero, but rather a human being doing his >sort of bizarre justification of everyone else's >behavior ("Oh, at least we're not as bad as >John"), and to me, it stinks.
---
ha, well, it's somewhat ironic, as i would actually probably tend to be more critical of ram dass than the average person... anyway, i'm sure you can at least understand why lilly gets singled out in that manner in the popular perception--bottom line is, those folks may have all done dumb/dangerous things while tripping, but they didn't end up having nde's and all...

> but have not breathed a word of the
> fact that lilly nearly died several
> times as a direct result of his k
> (and in one instance, pcp) explorations.
---
>Indirect results, for the most part. Direct >results would be overdoses - there was one of >those, when he took 40 milligrams of PCP.

i guess i injudiciously used the word 'direct' there. i meant k-related.

i forgot that aspect of the pcp story-- that he neglected the dosage inequivalencies. more grist for the perception of lilly as bumbler?
---
> i mean, how many messages does one
> need to get?
---
>He stopped using ketamine for several years >after being instructed to by his guardian beings.

isn't there a part in one of the lilly books that talks about how, just after the memorial service for his wife, he goes up to his hotel room and injects himself with k?...i find that somewhat disturbing.---
---
>John Lilly lived to a ripe old age, and died of >natural causes. Tim Leary, who in later years >became an enthusiastic user of ketamine, also >did not die a ketamine related death. James >Kent, author of two excellent articles on >ketamine use that are available at Erowid, >appears to be alive and well. My last doctor's >check-up revealed no problems (and that included >a metabolic panel).
---
all valid (and felicitous) points.

> tragically, moore and turner aren't.
---
>It is tragic, yes, but no more so than when >someone dies in an automobile accident while >performing an outrageous stunt. Their reckless >behavior leaves behind a warning as the proper >limits of dissociative use for subsequent >travelers.

yeah, i guess i was throwing out there for speculation that there's some spooky metaphysical warning within these cautionary tales, while your interpretation is simply 'be careful; don't be reckless'.

i think you can maybe understand my perspective, though; why i am a little haunted by k, after reading about marcia moore's death (and the 'mysterious' circumstances surrounding it-- her remains not being discovered for several years and so forth), then learning of d.m. turner's, and then recalling lilly's close brushes with death.
---
> maybe it's not so tragic from one
> standpoint, if you are in a position
> to take to heart the lessons that
> k seems to impart regarding life/death
> issues...
---
>At least some users are of the opinion that D.M. >Turner chose to die. Many persons using >dissociatives and other psychedelics report >encountering a 'death space' wherein it seems as >though they have the choice as to whether or not >to live or die, to stay here in this realm or to >shed this mortal coil and go into more rarified >realms for further education...

right. i've wondered myself if such were the case in turner's death (and moore's, as well).
---
> but turner's family, for one, do not
> have the benefit of profound k
> experiences
---
>I have had deep divisions within my own family >regarding my use of LSD, marijuana, and DXM. >Lacking the profound experiences I have had via >these substances, my family sees only the image >of me going along to a D.M. Turner-style demise >(and they don't even know who D.M. Turner was).

well, it's admirable that you are so forthcoming with family members. that's a sticky area...in some cases unavoidable (it's hard to hide that sort of thing from one's significant other, say) while in other cases one wonders whether it's worth sharing with family members, given the ignorance and hysteria surrounding these issues.
---
> and are unable to get their son back.
---
>Should the families of automobile fatalities >lobby for the abolition of cars, or strict >limitation on their use?

but i think you probably agree that there should be strict limitation (though not via outright government prohibition) on the use of k, dxm. i'm not dictating how the families should respond or justifying how they may in any case, but just expressing sadness that turner's loved ones had/have to deal with the loss of him.

incidentally, i think there should, in fact, be sweeping changes made regarding automobile use...but that's another story!! (...also i'm waiting for the steam-powered cars that lilly saw on one of his k journeys into a Future!)
---
> and moore's lover and co-author
> alltounian, who did have experience
> with k, had negative things to
> say about it many years following
> moore's death...
---
>If you read carefully, he also had negative >things to say about it prior to Moore's death.

oh. i have never read "journeys".

>His own ambivalence toward the drug transformed >into outright hatred following Moore's death. >This is understandable, and forgivable. At the >same time, one can find similar quotes from ex->LSD users, so I'm not sure what value I find in >his statements, beyond "Be careful that this >shit doesn't fuck you the fuck up."

mmm. but i imagine the lsd users you're thinking of may not have had the medical/theoretical background/foundation that alltounian has.
---
> calling it a "seductress, not a goddess"
---
>Both extremes represent projections of human >fantasies on to a molecule.

good point. but, i do think we need to be careful not to go to extremes in characterizing all descriptions as being merely projections. you are more knowledgeable than myself in this area, but don't even the most enthusiastic datura-using shamans have an ambivalent/wary take on datura? can this all be reduced to 'projection'?
---
&> if one goes by the traditional
> definition of one who journeys
> to other worlds, and then heals
> members' of the tribe/culture's diseases...
> & negotiates with the spirits and so forth,
> for the benefit of the culture.
---
>I've done all that, though that certainly >doesn't mean much. Anyone can be a (mok)>shaman. The trick is being a good one.

if you've done all that then i beg to differ-- i think it means a hell of a lot! i don't think 'anyone' can do that. many, or likely most would not have the courage to take the routes that you've taken...or the sophistication to have an idea of what the heck to do once they're there.
---
---
> perhaps k is a dubious compound on
> some metaphysical level, one that's
> best approached by humans, if at all,
> with extreme caution.
---
>I feel that the dissociatives are harder to use >profitably than substances such as psiloc(yb)>in. This can perhaps be best illustrated by a >metaphor employed by a brilliant friend and >sometimes co-conspirator of mine:
---
>"Mushrooms are like a Macintosh OS, and DXM is >like Linux. Sure, the Mac looks prettier, it's >easier to interface with, it's harder to get in >over your head...but if you know what you're >doing with Linux, it's spectacular."
---
well put.

>I feel that dissociatives tend to dissolve >portions of the individual ego while leaving >other portions relatively intact - in a sense, >one is left in the driver's seat with a >dissociative experience, and, unfortunately, >many people crash rather badly... What it all >comes down to is that in the hands of a properly >focused, dedicated explorer, these substances >can be absolutely profound tools, and in the >hands of the ignorant, these substances can be >deadly.

again, the troubling thing is that moore, lilly, & turner were by no means ignorant in this area. hence the oft-invoked 'seduction' idea, and my personal 'spooked-outness'.

---
> the "zen master" thing is a hoary
> overused excuse, perenially dragged
> out to justify socially unacceptable
> or unseemly behaviour by people who
> are supposedly privy to "spiritual"
> insights that the rest of us aren't.
---
>Lilly never claimed to be privy to anything that >other people weren't, and always shared his lab >notes. BTW, he recognized the inappropriate >nature of his actions with the interviewer, and >candidly discussed them in his autobiography >when he didn't have to do so. This bespeaks a >dedication to honesty in reporting the effects >he >experienced.

that's true. good points. though, from what i remember reading of his behaviour at times, it seems that he occasionally affected a sort of smugness, like he was in possession of some cosmic secrets that the uninitiated weren't privy to...hence his silent or cryptic zen-type shtick.

mind you, i don't doubt that he had had access to all sorts of incredibly mind-blowing experiences. i just get the impression that he was at (inappropriate) times off in his k reality, and couldn't be bothered to interact much with the earthbound mortals. i imagine that such a person would be irritating to be around after a while.
---
> i don't find him in interviews to be
> engaging in "ruthless destruction"
> of "unfounded assumptions"; but
> simply deluded, flaky, and perhaps
> convinced of the infallibility of
> his ideas.
---
>He states repeatedly that he doesn't believe in >anything.

that may be his line, but he seems awfully sure of himself re some subjects in the interview.
---
> i have great respect for the zen buddhist
> tradition, but his discourse strikes me as
> being "dimestore zen", as in, "i can say
> whatever i want to say, and it doesn't
> really matter if it's true or false,
> because such is the nature of reality"
> kind of bullsh*t.
---
>I think you need to read again. Each of his >answers is appropriate to the question, and >leads into new areas of thought and reflection.

i'll torture myself by reading it again...but as i said, i've read it a few times over the years and each time found it disappointing and frustratingly incoherent in parts...his thoughts jump around without leading to any particularly satisfactory destination. i always come away feeling empty and slightly disturbed.
---
> from my reading, you're giving him way
> too much credit
---
>I think you're giving him way too little >credit. This is the man that the New York Times >once referred to as a walking one man syllabus >on Western Civilization. Whatever his excesses, >he did far more original scientific work in more >fields than anyone else in the psychedelic >community, and I don't think he gets the respect >he deserves.
---

i have to agree with you. i know i'm being particularly hard on him. there's no doubt in my mind that he was an extraordinary human being. his work with the dolphins, tanks, neurology, and in various other areas is amazing. i admire his compassion, his open-mindedness, his incredible courage and pioneering spirit, his fierce intellectual non-conformity, and the depth and breadth of his thinking.

but i always walk away feeling curiously empty after reading the material that he left behind. (i admit to never having heard any tapes of his talks). with mckenna, even when his ideas are ultimately spurious, there is nonetheless rich food for thought teeming from virtually every paragraph.

i remember being excited to find a copy of 'the dyadic cyclone' a few years ago in an out-of-the-way used bookshop. since it was one of the books he wrote after starting his k investigations, i thought it would be rich with fascinating and potentially 'useful' information. instead, like most of his other books, it detailed his bummers with arica, stuff about the repeating-tape thing, notes on his idiosycratic dietary and exercise theories...in short, i didn't find much of use there. in fact, i didn't find it a to be a good read on any level, really.

> in stating that he was making reference
> to a "caricature of drug addiction as
> popularly conceived".
---
>The caricature is that you end up in the ghetto >jonesing for drugs.

right...
---
> i've read the interview several times
> over the years, and it's difficult for
> me to read it and not come away with
> the idea that he is making, at worst,
> some backhanded racial slur
---
>Unlikely in the extreme.
---
i don't think it's 'unlikely in the extreme'. recall his background and his age. we both realize, i'm sure, that one can explore extreme otherworldly/innerspace dimensions, and still retain deeply ingrained prejudices. living in the white-bread environment of the human potential movement in california, how much contact do you think the guy actually had with persons of color living in the ghettos of say, harlem?

he would be far from the first person operating in an elite field to look with some contempt upon other groups of human beings. there are plenty of otherwise open-minded people or those with pretensions to various degrees of enlightenment who have or retain negative associations with different segments of humanity, and these feelings end up leaking out through their behavior and speech...none of us are entirely free from prejudices.

i'm not saying that he was a card-carrying racist, but everytime i read that interview, that comment jumps out at me, and i think that it was very unfortunately phrased. it may not have been intentional; it may have been perfectly harmless to his mind, but i think that it was a decidedly odd thing to say.

> or at best, a thoughtless, most
> unsympathetic putdown of those
> who struggle with genuine and
> very serious substance abuse
> problems.
---
>I think you're being overly sensitive.

in this area, i think lilly, and perhaps you, are not being sensitive enough...
---
> the "or something" part doesn't clue
> me into the fact that he is making
> a joke particularly; rather it seems
> characteristic of much of the
> interview: lots of poorly thought-out,
> sloppily tossed-off comments.
---
>They're excellently thought out, just not >elaborately and sometimes pointlessly wordy like >McKenna's rants.

again, they don't strike me as being particularly well thought-out...just tossed-off, and delivered with perhaps a tad too much conviction, despite his claims to not 'believe' in anything.

re mckenna i guess it's in part a matter of taste? some consider proust to be "elaborately and pointlessly wordy"; i think he's brilliant and enjoy soaking up every word. likewise, i don't think mckenna is ever pointlessly wordy; i think he is a master of the english language.

>Again, I have never seen a "self-dribbling >Faberge egg on the rebound."

but what a brilliant, poetic attempt to describe something, that as he professes, is indescribable, and the mere existence of which, is in fact seemingly "impossible".
---
> i wonder if lilly got this idea from sagan...
---
>Maybe Sagan got it from Lilly? Or maybe the >idea is just sensible.

the idea seems nutters to me...but what do i know? ;)
---
> at any rate, coke is a far cry from
> cannabis, so i find it curious that
> sagan would make this odd connection.
---
>It is not too odd to think that an introspective >sort of person might find cocaine useful for >introspection...

i guess you're right about that.
---
> i have never heard anyone say much
> of anything good about cocaine...
---
>Well, essentially, it's a low-tech stimulant, >far outclassed by the various amphetamines (in >my opinion)...Given that they're illegal for >anyone who doesn't have a doctor's prescription, >I recommend everyone stay far, far away.

yeah...and given what i've seen with my own eyes, i recommend everyone stay far, far away from say, meth...please.
---
>What Lilly said is that Freud's work on >psychoanalysis was based on his cocaine use. He >didn't say that this work was necessarily 100% >correct, or that it wasn't open to revision.

okay.
---
> from what i understand, it mostly pumps
> up the freudian ego, and suppresses the
> voice of the superego.
---
>And the Freudian Ego, good ole' circuit III,

that leary theory...bah...
...of limited use.

>is the birthing ground of the semantic map->making and grid-laying such as we find in >psychoanalysis...curious...
---
> i've heard coke described as the "id"
> drug-- hence i find it hard to believe
> that it would be responsible for deep
> insights into the psyche.
---
>"It is not the horse, but the pale rider."

yes. much of what you say regarding your personal experiences with different substances certainly gives credence to that...
---

---
> "i took cocaine to explore freud's
> theories about sexuality" yeah, me
> too! and then i started smoking crack
> to explore jung's theories about
> individuation.
---
>I took diphenhydramine to explore the worldview >of the European with cults, some strains of >Hinduisn/Buddhism, and some varieties of native >shamanism. What is so incredible about this >claim?

it just sounds very funny; with all due respect to lilly, imagine the average person saying this-- (i realize lilly does not fit into that category!) it's hilarious; comes across sounding like a convenient, and absurd/pretentious excuse for doing coke. i think it would be incredible-sounding coming out of just about anybody else's mouth; and even reading lilly say this, i still have to suppress my giggles.

are you making a joke re diphenhydramine? if you're serious, please explain. i had to look it up to learn that it's the active ingredient in benadryl.
---
> i take with a grain of salt what lilly
> says here
---
>It seems to me that you're overly critical of >Lilly and underly skeptical of McKenna.

maybe overly critical of lilly...but i don't profess to believe all or most of mckenna's stuff; much of which he put forth as speculation, anyway. like any good researcher in this area (lilly is a good example) i think he combined hard-nosed skepticism with an uncommonly open mind.
---
---
>If they'd found Lilly tht disquieting, no doubt >they would simply have not included the >interview. Things get cut from articles and >books all the time, you know.

right, but various kinds of obligation can enter into these situations...who knows? maybe they put him in, and their actual thoughts were that the guy is simply an out-and-out crank, but they put that flattering description of him in there so as not to offend, and also to enable the reader to decide on her/his own. i don't know...
---
> "playful and profound" could be
> euphemistic for, "he seems to be
> full of sh*t, but charmingly, he
> doesn't even believe in his own
> sh*t"...
---
>Or it could be representative of, "He didn't >seem to be worried aobut sounding like a real >honest to God intellectual, and didn't seem to >be to interested in 'Gee Bang Gee Whiz Gee >Golly' discussions of his trips, but made us >momentarily reconsider deep-seated assumptions >through his unorthodox manner of response."

the only assumption it made me reconsider was whether lilly was worth reading/listening to.
---
> and "extraterrestrial zen master" sounds
> like a new ager's projections of their
> yoda fantasies onto somebody.
---
>It sounds to me like someone paying homage to a >person they met who displayed deep spiritual >insight.

i guess i'm being overly cynical, but writers/interviewers give flattering blurbs describing people all the time. doubtless, many times there is some exageration at work, or their sincerity is somewhat lacking. anyway, it strikes me as being a particularly corny-sounding line & the product of little imagination...much like the title of the book-- 'mavericks of the mind'...oooooooh. wow, those far-out mavericks of the mind.
---
> (so what's the point? he may as well
> have been shooting heroin all those
> years; seems to have been for ends
> just as narcissstic/solipsistic)
---
>Upon careful consideration, I cannot agree. >Opioid abuse strikes me as utterly more trivial >than use of dissociatives at any frequency, as >one is simply wrapping up in a blanket of bliss >>Useful, no. Productive of compassion, no. >Some rare individuals seem to get fully >psychedelic effects from opiates, and I applaud >them, but in the main these compounds seem best >confined to extremely occasional nights of >vegetating. I find that dissociatives inspire a >joy in being human in me, and inspire compassion >in me for my fellow human beings. I cannot say >this of opiates. If I abuse dissociatives, I >don't feel quite human anymore, but this also is >true for LSD, 5-MeO-DMT, and a number of other >drugs besides.
---
okay. so, given that he had incredibly profound k experiences, which make your average heroin addict's journey pale in comparison (to say the least) in terms of mystic revelations or what have you, my basic complaint is that he seemed unable to bring back much of whatever he learned for the benefit of others. that's my perspective, anyway.

i guess you have gotten plenty from his work, but my experience is: reading jay stevens' "lsd and the american dream" over a dozen years ago, and being intrigued by the mysterious and provocative reference in the postscript to something called "vitamin k" and associated with lilly. from there on, i tried to research everything i could involving the subjects of lilly and ketamine. unfortunately, it seemed the more that i read, both of and by lilly, the more disappointed i grew. reality fell far behind expectation.

in contrast, karl jansen's writings on k are light years more enlightening...if you have experiences, but can't effectively share them with others, or express what you've learned, then obviously they're of limited value; namely to you and yourself alone. others, writing on the subjects of different substances, (including you, Walkaway) seem to be able to bring back more to "the people".

> myself, i see little wisdom at all
> expressed by him in the interview.
> if by "simultaneously well-experienced
> in alternate states of being" you mean,
> he was able, (as he talks about at a
> rather confusing juncture in the interview)
---
>I found the juncture to be perfectly easy to >understand.
---
> to realize that while tripping on k he
> was inside of a soap opera on television,
> and not talking to extraterrestrials,
> all i have to say is wow...great for him.
> what a boon to humanity.
---
>The interviewers asked if he thought the brain >functioned as a transceiver. He replied by >asking if they'd ever seen a TV show on >ketamine. The interviewer replied that he'd >seen such shows, 'with commercials even.' >Lilly replied that he thought that ketamine made >the brain more sensitive to microwave >transmissions, and that it is important to >realize that material like this may be affecting >us at a subconscious level at all times. Even >if one doesn't buy it, it's interested >speculation to contemplate on while stoned.

okay, now i get what the f*ck he was going on about. i agree, it is interesting to think about. it reminds me a little of an interview i read with bruce pavitt, the guy who used to do the sub pop record label, talking about his ayahuasca experiences. he talked about how during portions of many of his trips he saw "endless streams of Western advertising and kind of the garbage of Western capitalism". it makes me wonder, does this stuff simply originate from the environment we naturally see around us everyday? ...is some sort of morphogenetic field effect involved? or perhaps the sort of thing lilly is suggesting-- that on some level our minds may always be picking up all the nonsense constantly being broadcast over various frequencies.
---
> maybe that means by that point he
> had learned to stop calling the
> president of the u.s. on the phone
> to warn him of imminent takeovers
> of humanity by solid-state entities.
---
>As if a guy talking about elves and the end of >the world is any better?

well, mckenna didn't try to call the president to rant about entities he encountered while tripping. nor was he ever in any way alarmist regarding his 2012 speculations. and again, he's not the only one to have seen elves...
---
> he doth protest too much??
---
>Again, he actually met Lilly, and you did not.

you're absolutely right...but my response to reading interviews with him can't entirely be discounted. & perhaps i would have 'seen' something different had i the opportunity to meet lilly face-to-face, as did jansen. one man's genius is another man's flake. or something like that...
---
> "straight-laced" may not be apt, but
> nor would i concur that he was "weird
> as hell".
---
>He had to be convinced not to hammer electrodes >into his skull. He was convinced he was an >extraterrestrial attached to a human being >named 'John.'

i always found that part of 'the scientist', where he claimed to have experienced himself as "an extraterrestrial attached to a human being named 'john'" hard to swallow. even the most scrupulous of folks are not immune to a little bit of auto-hagiography. and sometimes the memory plays tricks on us...and wishful thinking...

>These were years prior to his ketamine use.
---
> mckenna speculates on some wild ideas,
> some of which do not appear to hold up,
> but they are always sophisticatedly,
> brilliantly, and entertainingly presented.
---
>They are entertaining stoned bullshitting. >McKenna was no horseshitter.
---
?? are you implying a difference between bullshitting and being a horseshitter? i'm confused by the above. i can only guess you take 'bullshitting' to mean casual talk/speculation like of the proverbial dorm room bull session variety...and by 'horseshitter' you mean out-and-out liar?

> for what it's worth, as i'm sure you
> know, many others have reported seeing
> the "machine elves".
---
>Set/setting.
---
that discounts the phenomenon somehow? i don't understand.

> i think he demonstrates through his
> talks and writings that he is
> absolutely grounded
---
>I take rather the opposite impression. I find >his mycological obsession to be utterly >preposterous. The proposition that everything >best about humanity originated in drug use is >nothing more than a silly stoned fantasy, and >frankly, I find it demeaning to the human >capacity for invention...It's just that htere's >too narrow of a focus on "drugs drugs drugs," >and not enough on where they lead.

i dunno...i find a lot of validity to the idea that drugs have played a tremendous role in human evolution. and i think that he is very concerned with where drugs lead...in fact, i think it's a constant theme of his talks/writings. what now? given the experiences possible with tryptamines, where might that lead humanity? what's next?

but i also think i see what you mean, to a point. i think he was generally much too dismissive of traditional human (non-drug) religious/spiritual activity, (interestingly, when he knew he was dying he seemed to acquire a newfound respect for say, buddhism) and perhaps did dwell too much on a magical drug/'the Other' solution to humanity's crisis rather than rolling up one's sleeves and doing 'the work'...
---
> and more than coherent
---
>I consider the ranting about elves to be >entertaining, but hardly coherent.

i find it altogether coherent.
---
> in fact, i'll say it again, he's brilliant.
> his writing surely outshines that of others
> working in similar territory.
---
>I find Lilly and Leary to be more to my tastes.

lilly, as i stated above, i find disappointing, and kinda 'empty'...i think so much of leary comes across as quite dated.
---
> reading mckenna is a sheer delight.
---
>He was a pretty good bullshitter, even if the >content sometimes approached zero.

wow. how we differ there. i think the content is overflowing! if you ever feel inclined, check out these talks on alchemy, for instance...wow. alchemy (http://www.well.com/user/davidu/tmalchemy.html) (incidentally, not my site; a different david)
---
---
> but of course i would be remiss to neglect
> mentioning daniel p's work; BOtH is a
> more-than admirable and exciting entry
> into the field.
---
>It is certainly not more seminal than >Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human >Biocomputer or Simulations of God.

'programmming and metaprogramming' isn't particularly accessible, though. & 'simulations', though it is geared to a more general audience, is out of print and difficult to find. i guess i wouldn't use the word 'seminal' to describe BOtH, but there aren't many other contemporary books of such quality and addressing such exotic subject matter currently being published. in fact, i can hardly think of any. i'm definitely grateful that it exists.
---
> lilly, on the other hand, didn't seem
> to be able to complete his books
---
>Hmm...he wrote a number of them, on a variety of >subjects (i.e., he wasan't just a drug writer). >No one-trick pony, Mr. Lilly.

right, agreed. but in at least a couple of interviews i've read, he mentions that he is working on a book...he gives different titles like 'don't bore god' or 'alternity such-and-such' or 'the jello-bowl universe' or some such...i kept waiting for these books to see the light of day... & nothing ever did, except a sort of retrospective of his career, which was basically a retread of 'the scientist' and maybe bits of 'the center of the cyclone'. it reminded me a little of when everyone was waiting for brian wilson to finish the 'smile' album... so what's the deal with that? k-solipsism...psychedelic heroin, etc?

>I always find it amusing when Robert Anton >Wilson brags about having written 40 books when >so many of them are just repetitions of the same >idea he used in numerous 'other' books. After a >while, they all blend in together.

agreed. i think he wrote the same two books about a dozen times. they're good books, but...
---
> & what books he did get out there have
> an anemic quality that is curious in
> light of the topic at hand...
---
>Lilly was concerned with accurate reporting and >scientific analysis, not "Gee Bang Gee Whiz Gee >Golly" exclamations of how hard he'd tripped.

i dunno. i think the 'accurate reporting' and 'scientific analysis' was overshadowed by his tales of adventures and misadventures in the human potential scene...arica, rolfing, fad diets, etc...and his love-life...and his neuroses. all of which could and did sometimes make for interesting reading...but i think he could have used a better editor. 'simulations' is a pretty tightly constructed book, but the rest meander too much.
---
> and in interviews he comes across as flaky
---
>Again, I just don't think he gave a shit.

not giving a shit is admirable, but even more so when combined with groundedness and coherency.
---
> i'm very curious to know what you
> find "distasteful" in regard to
> those aspects of his work.
---
>I find the term 'hallucination' to be >intellectually shallow. These >aren't 'hallucinations,' and calling them that >to the populace is just as bad as trying to >communicate ego death by saying, "I saw God." >The term may (very, very loosely) 'fit,' but it >invites more misunderstanding than it >accomplishes real communication.

i think he was in fact well-aware of the point that you're making, and i think that he emphasized the importance of seeing these phenomena for what they were-- & not dismissing them as 'mere hallucination'. i think the very fact that he chose to call one of his books 'True Hallucinations' indicates his sophisticated take on this matter and his desire to communicate this to the public.

>As for entity contact, as a Buddhist, I take the >view that entities may have interesting trivia >to tell me, but are not going to be instrumental >in Liberation.

i have never taken formal Refuge, but feel most simpatico with buddhism myself. those feelings inspired my own greatest conflicts with mckenna's ideas, which i think i've alluded to above and elsewhere on this board.

still i never found it 'distasteful'. i think generally speaking, he had a pretty shrewd take on the entity phenomena. he didn't consider everything that they imparted to be merely 'interesting trivia', but he did realize that 'it's no great accomplishment to hear voices, but getting them to tell you the truth is another thing'
---
> man, i only wish you were right
> about that one.
---
>I am. Statistically, most people who experiment >with drugs stop doing so on their own.

experiment, sure. but to my mind, you're still glossing over the problem of addiction.
---
---
> gee, that doesn't sound like classic
> "denial" talk of an "addict" or
> anything...
---
>If you want to get me started on a general >criticism of NA/AA and their entire bullshit >system of self-consistent categories, just say >the word.

i'm not by any means trying to parrot na/aa stuff...but i have known intimately people who, & you may think it fascist of me to use this category, but dammit, they were Addicts, no doubt...& denial was there, front and center. sure there are lots of problems with conventional concepts of substance abuse and treatment strategies, but this stuff is not all made up out of thin air...many of the concepts are valid, and can be plainly seen in actual, not bogus theoretical, people's behaviors.
---
> and didn't he stop at that point only
> because his sources of k refused to
> continue supplying him after observing
> his progressively disturbing behavior?
> or because he almost died after trying
> to do something he shouldn't have been
> doing on k?
---
>No, he stopped because his guardian spirits told >him to stop.

after he almost died how many times?
---
> again, it could be argued that this
> is cliche addict behavior of saying
> "go away, leave me alone...my
> drinking/drugging patterns are not
> a problem/none of your business"...
---
>What if someone's family was convinced they had >an "LSD abuse" problem becuase they used it >twice a month? Would you support the family's >intervention?

you can't fairly compare a theoretical case of someone using lsd twice a month to the actual case of lilly repeatedly using k and his (open-minded, human potential yadda-yadda friends and loved ones) becoming greatly concerned over changes manifesting in his personality...and his breaks with consensus reality. given his history, lilly's annoyance at people for lecturing him about his use of k seems slightly outrageous and maybe a little ungracious.
---
> he's so damn glib and convinced of his
> righteousness.
---
>Hmm, sounds like someone else I know. ;)

you talkin' 'bout me or you? :D
---
---
> again, i maintain that the complicated
> profile and unpredictable effects of lsd
> and similar substances make it
> undesirable for the average person to
> repeat the experience with the regularity
> of other drugs commonly characterized as
> having addictive potential.
---
>I maintain that the average person, upon taking >a high dose of a dissociative, will be horrified >and never wish to repeat the experience.

fair enough.
---
>LSD lacks specific pharmacological effects on >physiological drug dependence that are exerted >by DXM. That said, what most 'addicts' need >more than anything else is a good smack across >the back of the head, and LSD can most certainly >provide that.

they need a lot of other things, but...
---
---
>Actually, one criticism of mine in relation to >McKenna would be his preference for high doses >always over low doses with psychedelics. I >think this is a juvenile macho attitude.

i think it certainly can be, but not in mckenna's case. he was saying to people, 'don't eat a light dose of mushrooms and then go to a concert; rather, take a significant dose and then sit quietly in the dark...close your eyes'. he was trying to get people to see that there was a whole spectrum of dramatic effects possible that people were missing out on through casual, 'recreational' use.

>I do not think that McKenna held up very well at >all under the influence of psycholytic doses of >various psychedelics. "Psychoanalysis" was >found by him to be "grating" - he wanted >the "transcendental Other," not all this mucking >about in his personal mess.

i think he held up just fine...my interpretation is, that it wasn't that he was necessarily trying to avoid dealing with his personal business, but rather he simply felt that taking lsd left him with just his mind to explore, and that in a somewhat relentless, annoying fashion. he was more intrigued by what he saw as the 'shamanistic' qualities of say, the tryptamines, so he sought to go further in that direction. can you blame him for growing weary of going in circles 'round his own head, when other, stranger frontiers awaited?

>It seems to me that many people use psychedelics >in a similar fashion - as a means of reaching >wonderfully abstracted spiritual states that >don't have much grounding in the day-to-day >movements of their lives, and a consequent >dissatisfaction with each breath and each >moment. (I tend to be of the opinion that each >movement is boundless bliss) I don't think it's >too hard to eat a high dose of 'shrooms, "trip >balls," and escape reality for an afternoon. >I've seen more than one stupid teenager do it, >and it pained me to watch it happen. It crushed >my psychedelic idealism right out of me.

i agree...i had my 'psychedelic idealism' crushed out of me under similar circumstances. the first time i took lsd, i thought 'omigod!!!! how can this stuff exist and the world still be the way it is?' ...then i witnessed people taking the same drug, in same or higher doses, same setting, and watched them fixate on 'seeing trails' or some such nonsense. pretty disheartening. then i kinda understood pretty quickly one reason why the 'sixties dream' didn't work out
---
>I have seen people who could play fantastic >games with acid, negotiating with it so >that, even at high doses, it was nothing more >than a stimulating, glowy fun-time. Nothing too >serious, nothing too profound... I saw these >people skirt the edge of ego death a few times, >and it scared them shitless - not at the time, >but afterward. An actual philosophical >reorientation, a complete re-thinking of my life >from the ground up? Shucks, I was just in it >for the visuals.

right. good point. i've seen the same with my own eyes.
---
>> ...First, LSD was tested in low daily
>> maintenance doses (that do not generate
>> tolerance) as an anti-depressant.
---
> cool! sign me up!
---
>How is this significantly different from someone >taking low doses of ketamine daily to maintain a >continual (yet operational) level of >dissociation? DXM exhibits potent activity on >serotonin re-uptake, and thus conceivably could >exert powerful anti-depressant effects if taken >in moderate doses (1-2 mg/kg) daily. Would you >consider this 'troubling dissociative abuse' or >a 'therapeutic modality of use?'

okay. the latter. again, sign me up! ;)

---
>> Smoking pot daily is doubtless much
>> worse for one's lung than daily
>> ketamine use.
---
> well, yeah, but that's because one
> doesn't smoke k.
---
>My point was that anyone who claims to be an >advocate of the responsible use of drugs who >doesn't warn of the dangers specific to each >chemical as commonly used is being disingenous.

it's funny how rarely people bring up the effects that smoking pot has on the lungs. i guess that's maybe in part because it is such a 'politically correct' drug in certain circles, as compared to cigarettes or alcohol.
---
---
> take a substance like cocaine, which
> causes, a profound flood of pleasure-
> causing/reward-based chemicals to be
> released in humans. that's going to
> tend to lead to problems in human use.
---
>No one would prostitute themselves for a fix of >cocaine if cocaine were cheap, legal, and pure.

i think some would. crack is cheap... some alcoholics turn tricks.
---
> caffeine, on the other hand, which may
> provide a mild experience of pleasure...
---
>Balzac certainly did not find it mild.

that's 'cause the guy drank 80 cups a day!!!

---
> well, people are not going to be
> prostituting themselves if they
> can't get their daily cup of coffee...
---
>I dunno about that. Caffeine came close to >being a prohibited drug in this country, and I >wonder what a different social construction >might have done for its use. I can imagine some >serious java drinkers I know who would do some >pretty illegal things to get caffeine were it >illicit and expensive.

it's interesting to speculate...but caffeine has been barred from some islamic societies in the past, correct? and i don't think anyone stabbed anybody for want of coffee in those instances... i guess in the case of stimulants, there are always substitutes. your coffee friends would probably just start chewing betel nuts or something.
------
---
> i guess when i look at these websites
> i just worry about curious young
> people's welfare.
---
>Me too. That's why I try to spread good >information.

cool. i hope you keep it up. the kids may be alright, but they are not all right.
---
> in short, i think lilly generally
> comes off as a fool and overly glib
---
>I think he comes across as light-hearted and >unconcerned with taking himself or anything else >seriously.

i guess lilly, mckenna, et al are a little like drugs...you, Walkaway, get a much different experience 'on lilly' then i do. i'm the dullard just sitting around saying 'wow...look at those trails, man.'
---
> i think your take on "addiction",
> particularly the psychological aspect,
> is glossing over the realities
---
>No, it is uncovering them for all to see - only >by claiming our existential responsibility and >becoming Awake can we make any genuine existence >for ourselves. We can all make excuses based on >environment and heredity and demons and any >number of other things
>...but eventually, we just have to take >responsibility for our own movies, and start >writing the script.

yeah, but nonetheless, i think it's worthwhile to keep in mind that some people are handed better scripts than others...which makes the re-writing process that much more difficult. not to mention having to work with low budgets, meddlesome selfish producers, capricious directors, egomaniacal actors, etc. i think part of exercising a compassionate viewpoint is to recognize that some things which may, from an outsider's perspective, may look like excuses for excuses, present to the person in question, (whether perceived rightly or wrongly as such) very 'real' obstacles ...walking a mile in the other person's shoes, and all that stuff...

again, i truly appreciate your post(s). you really know your stuff! thanks.
---

[Walkaway]

---
> first i need to get this out of the
> way: john stossel is one of the
> biggest asses on television!!
---
In all this debate, let us not forget our common enemy: Bill O'Reilly.
---
> if schaler himself were a recovering
> addict, then i would be more willing
> to take his theories to heart.
---
I am recovering from physiological dependence on caffeine and nicotine. Also:
---
"'People need to get rid of the idea that addiction is caused by anything other than themselves,'" says James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces, a book about his experience as an addict.

"Frey says he took just about every drug, from alcohol to crack. Yet Frey says he wasn't powerless. He scoffs at Dewey's claim that addicts' brains compel them to keep taking drugs."
---
Companion Article (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Living/stossel_addiction030421.html)
---
> despite his protestations, his theory
> offers a goldmine for any who wish to
> demonize addicts and heap all sorts of
> (counterproductive) blame on their
> shoulders.
---
This isn't about blame. This is about 'addicts' taking personal responsibility for their behaviors.
---
> i'm sure his book would serve as good
> inspiration for any politicians wishing
> to slash funds for treatment programs
---
This would be true only if they twisted it past the point of recognition. People who choose to abuse drugs obviously need to be shown why they're making poor choices - and not just on a gross physical level. Therapy is more necessary in this instance - we have to get the person to recognize what they're doing to themselves.
---
> and those who wish to emphasize
> incarceration over rehabilitation...
---
Again, this would be true only on the most superficial of levels. I also think that the genetics argument ends up giving more ammunition to the incarceration side of the debate, as it can be argued that 'addicts' literally cannot help themselves. They're 'sick.' This location of the locus of responsibility outside of the 'addict' is a perpetuation of the same error of thinking which originally eventuated in drug abuse.
---
> [what a wonderfully glib and meaningless
> slogan serving to trivialize a very
> complex issue]
---
It isn't really too complex. You can choose to put a needle in your arm, or you can choose to do something else. All this talk about 'addiction' and 'seduction' by 'drugs' reminds me of medieval demonology.
---
> and that it's the incredibly strong
> wills of drug abusers which result
> in them continuing to abuse drugs...
> let's throw all these willfully evil
> bums in jail forever!"
---
That is a gross caricature of Schaler's position. The issue isn't one of good versus evil - the issue is why people's life conditions lead them to the conclusion that it is better to abuse drugs in a self-destructive fashion than to live as productive members of society. It is appalling that people are driven to such extremes of desperation, but the fact remains that the only thing that will help them is giving them a different worldview and hoping that, as a consequence, they make different choices.
---
> this is a classic stossel story; he is
> obsessed with the idea that america is
> a "victim" culture
---
I agree with him. Everyone is a victim of something these days. It's either their parents, or their grandparents, or their schoolteachers, or society in general...instead of focusing on what can be changed in the situation that they dislike, they seem to prefer to take their initially given conditions as absolutes and moaning over their 'lot in life.'
---
Let me go off on a pet rant: I am fucking sick of watching people sue tobacco companies and subsequently getting financial compensation because they claim that they didn't know that cigarettes were bad for them. This is absolutely ludicrous. My friend who is sitting next to me is a pack-a-day smoker, and knows how bad it is for him, and still continues to smoke. Anyone who smokes cigarettes regularly for a week or two knows, in their heart of hearts, that cigarettes are bad for them. These people are just whining and asking for someone else to compensate for the results of their poor choices. Unfortunately, the courts go along with it instead of saying, "You know, that's what happens when you smoke a lot. Case dismissed."
---
> and so, week after week, he constantly
> parades various Experts out onto his
> show to tell us that all we need do is
> pull ourselves up by our bootstraps,
> 'get over ourselves', etc. and
> everything will be fine...
---
Again, I largely agree with that.
---
Also:
---
"In Canada, some lawyers are suing the government, saying it is responsible for getting people addicted to video slot machines.

Jean Brochu says he was unable to resist the slot machines — that he was 'sick.' He says the government made him sick, and his sickness led him to embezzle $50,000. Now, he's suing the government to restore his dignity and pay his therapy bills."
---
Previously Cited Link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Living/stossel_addiction030421.html)
---
> meanwhile, the obesity epidemic
> continues
---
People eat too much and exercise too little. This is not an epidemic. I am of reminded of the people who attempted to sue McDonald's for making them fat. {sigh}
---
> the drug abuse epidemic continues
---
The drug abuse epidemic is largely a creation of the War on Drugs - poor education about how to use drugs, and lack of access to materials of consistent purity and dose.
---
> if, in fact, america is a victim culture,
> perhaps that is because said 'victims'
> live in a exceedingly toxic culture.
---
It's interrelated. Individual choices make up the cultural fabric, and the cultural fabric in turn exerts it's pressure on individual choices. A complete paradigm shift is called for if we do not wish to be continually plagued with the same problems, which are really only the results of an original error in thinking.
---
> it should come as no surprise that people
> get in trouble with various substances
> when the environment that they are
> brought up in is often one of hopelessness
> and abuse.
---
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Sad, depressed, alienated people choose, on the basis of their life experiences, to opt out instead of in. This choice is not made on the basis fo what your or I would consider to be a completely accurate analysis of the situation, but the person's choices speak volumes of their worldview. The best way to "cure" them is to provide them with a different worldview.
---
> my impression is that the actual
> situation is the precise opposite
> of how he is stating it...i reckon
> that people tend to abuse drugs not
> to avoid coping with aspects of
> life, but rather to enable them to
> cope with it...
---
This is a game of pure semantics at this point. Many people take drugs because they have shitty situations about which they do not wish to think. On one level, this could be seen a sa coping mechanism, and on another level as being an avoidance of coping by retreat into a fantasy world.
---
> this is sloppily/illogically stated. the
> good doctor should know better. seeing
> as how alcohol, heroin, etc. enhance an
> addict's sense of well-being
---
Is euphoria the same thing that Schaler means here? I don't think so.
---
> it reads to me as a convenient way
> of saying "blame-the-addict"...
---
No, it's a convenient way of saying "Recognize the situation for what it is, and react accordingly." It should not be surprising that the recidivism rate from 12 Step Programs is so high after people have been inculcated with the doctrine that they literally cannot help themselves.
---
> while meanwhile, the socio-economic and
> cultural factors in this country, which
> i feel play an enormous role in this
> problem, are ignored.
---
They do play an enormous role. Genetics also doubtless plays a role. But the fact of the matter is that culture and genetics won't make anything of you - you have to make the choices that lead to development along certain paths. To borrow an example from a source I no longer remember (mea culpa), genetics did not predispose Muggsy Boges to being a great basketball player. He became a great basketball player because of his love for the game. I also think that the social construction of the drug problem creates much of the drug problem, and I think that if we offered better lives to our citizens, much of the attraction of the turn-off drugs, such as heroin and alcohol, would be lost. I must remain firm, though, in maintaining that one of the cultural flaws that leads to drug abuse is the prevailing mythology of 'drug addiction.'
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[Walkaway]

Apropos of a case of voluntary medicinal intoxication with dextromethorphan hydrobromide
Annales Medico-Psychologiques
Volume 1, Issue 3, 1968, Pages 447-451
Bornstein, S.; Czermak, M.; Postel, J.

from abstract: "The case of a 23-yr-old female patient who used dextromethorphan, a synthetic antitussive morphine derivative, for hallucinogenic purposes revealed different elements of an induced psychosis, similar to those described in 1948 by Delay and Gerard in mescaline intoxication: bodily disturbances, strangeness felt vis-a-vis the world and objects, loss of identity and self-regulation with respect to people and things, auditory perception modifications, spatial and temporal estimation, and hallucinatory manifestations, etc."
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[ October 08, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Walkaway ]

[Walkaway]

---
"From the standpoint of Recognition, the gross body is valuable only as an instrument, primarily for the reaching of other embodied consciousnesses. It is no longer of vital importance for its own sake or as a means of experience, since, for him who has once reached the Source of Joy and Knowledge, all of the delights and information which may be derived from experience become mere shadows for which he tends to feel a certain disgust. But the gross body still remains valuable as an instrument of action and requires the attention which a good artisan would give a useful tool, but not more. Here we come fact to face with one of the higher temptations, i.e., the neglecting or letting go of an instrument which is abrake upon the play of the Higher Consciousness, whether in the sense of Knowledge or Ecstasy. An instance which illustrates this point is found in the case of a certain Oriental who, in the early part of his life, had become a college professor. He attained Illumination, and then naturally his center of interest shifted to the Higher World. He did not forget this physical world, however, and did leave it considerable benefit from his new insight. According to his own account, he finally planned a systematic philosophic staement, but the inward attraction had become so strong that the desire to give expression to his Recognition withered. He moved more and more into the life of meditation, and finally, when bathing in a stream, was drowned, owing to his having entered an inward state while in the water. The world lost something this man could have left, for he had the power of expression in high degree. From His own standpoint, to be sure, He had merely dropped a fetter, but the present is not a time when, in general, such men may rightly feel themselves free to disregard the needs of others while satisfying Their own inner convenience."
---
(Merrel-Wolff, Pathways Through to Space: An Experiential Journal, pp. 65-6. Julian press edition, 1973; original edition, 1944)
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[Walkaway]

DJB: Do you see a similarity between lucid dreaming and ketamine experiences?

JOHN: No. Lucid dreaming is never as powerful as ketamine.

DJB: Well, one nice thing about ketamine is that you can maintain the high for as long as you want.

JOHN: When people start talking about 'higher' states of consciousness I say, 'In outer space there's no up or down.'

DJB: It all becomes relative.

JOHN: No, it isn't even relative.

DJB: It isn't even relative?

JOHN: It isn't anything you can describe.

DJB: Now I'm thoroughly confused.

JOHN: If you stay around me long enough you're going to get a whole new language. Some people stay around me for a while and run away. I can't keep a woman here. They all get frightened sooner or later. I'm crazier than hell.
---
(Brown & Novick, Mavericks of the Mind, p. 224)
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[ October 13, 2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Walkaway ]

[David Orange]

Walkaway,
interesting old abstract that you dug up there. also enjoyed the merrel-wolff quote. he is an fascinating character; i need to investigate him further. what sort of connection did he and lilly have, other than julian putting out their books, and lilly quoting him at times? were they friends?

i was looking at a recently published book last week (one of those writings about drugs/drugs in literature kinda books) which included a chapter on anesthetics. there was a retelling of the story where marcia moore visits lilly and he warns her about k. it said that prior to their meeting, at least a couple of lilly's friends had died k-related deaths. is this true?

re the "addiction" issue: last friday night on pbs' "now" with bill moyers, they did a segment on drug addiction and those who consider it to be a "disease". they mentioned the business of insurance companies not wanting to get into paying for treatment, prisons clogged up with inordinate numbers of drug abuse related-offenders, & the issue of the "stigma" still associated with alcoholism/drug abuse... after viewing the segment i began to fear that my grim predictions were coming to pass-- theories held by the likes of schaler are being used to demonize people with substance abuse problems, and hence the problem will only grow worse in the future...

coincidentally, the program happens to run in the same timeslot as stossel's 20/20...that show seems to have really degenerated. i dunno if they ever really covered substantive issues, but lately it seems all they do is celebrity and trend stories. thank goodness for bill moyers.

[Walkaway]

Another early reference to PCP as a psychedelic drug:
---
The Pharmacology of Psychedelic Drugs
Ralph Metzner
Issue 1 of Psychedelic Review, Summer 1963
pp. 69-100
---
"The term 'psychedelic,' taken from Osmond (1957), is used here to refer to a group of substances whose primary effect on human subjects is the radical alteration of consciousness, perception, and mood. They have been variously called 'psychotomimetic,' 'hallucinogenic,' 'psychotogenic,' 'consciousness-expanding,' or 'mysticomimetic.' No attempt is made here to describe or analyze the subjective psychological effects of these drugs and plants, and the reader may be referred to the excellent reviews by Osmond (1957) and Unger (1963) for this purpose.
"Many drugs and still more plants with unknown chemical constitutents are known to alter consciousness, perception, and mood. The amphetamines induce arousal or mood elevation; the barbiturates produce somonolence or narcosis. The more recent tranquilizers and anti-depressants seem to vary on a parallel but more subtle dimension. The present group of substances excludes these as well as the opiates, cocaine and other anaesthetics , and atropine and its derivatives. The 'psychedelic' drugs reviewd here were selected according to the following criteria:
"(1) their somatic effects are relatively unimportant, compared to the marked psychic effects;
"(2) no cases of addiction or dependence have been reported;
"(3) though tolerance develops, there is no abstinence syndrome on withdrawal;
"(4) they have been described in the psychiatric literature as 'psychotomimetic';
"(5) they have also been described in the psychiatric literature as useful in therapy.
"With these criteria in mind a group of about fifteen drugs was selected, which may be classified chemically into the following five categories: (1) phenylethylamine derivatives, of which mescaline is an example; (2) lysergic acid derivatives, of which LSD is an example; (3) tryptamine derivatives, of which psilocybin is an example; (4) piperidyl benzilate esters, of which JB 329 or Ditran is an example; and (5) phencyclidine (Sernyl).
"A word about similarities and differences between these drugs. there seems to be general consensus that the drugs in the first three groups are essentially alike in their effects, differing only in duration of action (Unger, 1963; Szara, 1957; Wolbach et al., 1962a). The relationship of these drugs to Ditran and Sernyl is less well understood, but they are alike in producing 'psychotic-like' hallucinatory episodes in which contact is maintained and which may result in reintegration and insight (English, 1962). For the purposes of this paper, they will be assumed to be sufficiently alike to warrant searching for common or parallel pharmacological mechanisms."
---
(pp. 69-70)
---
"(5) Phencyclidine
"Sernyl, which is 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl) piperidine, originally used as an anesthetic, was reported to be 'psychotomimetic' by Luby et al. (1959) and has also been used in psychotherapy (Davies 1960, 1961). Chemically, it is related to the previous group of piperidyl benzilate esters, but differs in not antagonizing acetylcholine, and in other respects. The main difference in the type of action induced by Sernyl as compared to other hallucinogens is its strong sedative effect (Gershon et al., 1960)."
---
(p. 76)
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[ October 22, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Walkaway ]

[Walkaway]

---
> well, turner, for one, who had
> extensive experience with k,
> made the same comment.
---
He reported that the mind seemed to protectively close off access to the majority of information provided by ketamine. I have read similar comments concerning high doses of LSD. A friend's wife cannot take more than 200 or so ug of LSD if she wishes to remember anything of her peak.
---
> he reported needing to dose with 2-CB
> in order to retain memory of the experience.
---
DJB: Do you have a hard time bringing information back?

JOHN: Oh, of course. It isn't hard to bring it back, it just doesn't come back. It's in you, though; ECCO put me straight on that. They said, 'Well, everything that's happened is stored and when it's important that you know it, you'll know it.
---
(Brown & Novick, Mavericks of the Mind, p. 215)
---
BTW, Lilly was originally informed of this while on LSD.
---
> okay...but he is obviously being
> hyperbolic there, and trying to
> make a point re his sincere
> preference for psilocybin over lsd.
---
He was constantly dismissive of LSD because, according to him, it didn't make him 'hallucinate' enough and was too 'psychoanalytical.' He also wasn't above distorting the facts in relation to LSD/psilocybin, as when he claimed that the gang at Millbrook switched to using LSD as their primary tool because it was more available than psilocybin. If one reads the accounts of Leary, Alpert, and Metzner of their initial encounters with LSD, this view is revealed to be completely erroneous.
---
> for him, lsd left him wandering around
> his own mind, while psilocybin presented
> a gateway to the Other.
---
'The Other' is not separate from us. I have found that LSD most often takes me to where I need to be. If there are elements of my planetside equipment that are not functioning/programming so smoothly, working through those enables me to reach more rarified 'cosmic' levels on subsequent trips. I think McKenna preferred psilocybin because it was less of a broad-band psychedelic than LSD.
---
> perhaps they do, & some are more
> responsive than others to those messages?
---
I tend to conceive of psychedelics in the terms enunciated by Stanislav Grof: "non-specific amplifiers of latent mental processes."
---
> maybe lilly freaking out on the plane
---
When was that? He just warned his wife that the SSI had told him there'd be a power failure. Then there was a power failure. This incident scared Toni precisely because his K-addled delusion came to pass.
---
> time will tell, though. perhaps mckenna
> will eventually be remembered by more
> people than leary.
---
I certainly hoipe not, as Leary actually enunciated coherent theories that lead in productive directions, in addition to his quota of stoned speculation.
---
> i am not saying this because i am a
> true believer in 2012 stuff or anything
---
While I think radical changes will be afoot in the next century, I also think the TimeWave Zero model is...not so accurate.
---
> ha, yeah...i guess i'm not doing much
> for my case by bringing up the
> circumstances of mckenna's death...but,
> to extend the analogy, gordon wasson
> didn't die of brain cancer
---
Wasson used psychedelics of all sorts quite, quite sparingly. His drug history is not even remotely comparable to McKenna's or Turner's.
---
> and mckenna didn't write about receiving
> messages from ketamine entities telling
> him that psilocybin is a "frankenstein
> molecule"
---
True enough. However, James Kent has written of psilocybin as being 'baiting and taunting' and I would have to say that my experience agrees.
---
> well, you don't have to take the message
> as worded literally. the message may have
> symbolic value of importance, and not
> just betwen turner and his own psyche.
---
Symbolic value of message: "don't shoot K all the time. There's more to life than being dead."
---
> he, at any rate, felt it to be important
> enough to report it in his book.
---
Which book, and where?
---
> anyway, aren't we constantly hearing
> explorers, be they of k, dmt, whatever...
> tell us that the entities are decidedly
> not components of one's psyche, but are
> in fact separate, independent beings?
---
I dunno about that. I've shot K, I've smoked DMT, I've encountered loads of entities on these and sundry other compounds...but I am not convinced of their 'existence.' On the other hand, I am not convinced of my own existence, so that should show you the type of person I am.
---
> yeah, but i think you know what i'm
> driving at...some spiritual or
> metaphysical component to us, that is
> involved in connecting us to "other worlds"
---
If such an essence exists, I fail to see what hypothetical detrimental actions material substances could exert on it.
---
> well, obviously there are degrees of
> obnoxiousness; from merely being
> irritating, to completely violating
> social boundaries/rules of propriety.
---
I think the Merry Pranksters covered that entire spectrum. Ken Kesey showed me footage of their bus trip wherein a tweaked-out Neal Cassady was ranting about the fourth dimension which is time, and then got up from the wheel and began walking back toward the camera to forcefully enunciate his point. At the last moment, Cassady realized he was supposed to be driving, and ran to the wheel just in time. Ken turned to us and said, "He'd been up for about three days at that point."
---
> perhaps
---
Indubitably. Words are stupid. Limitedly useful, but stupid.
---
> but in most cases i'd say that's
> pseudo-zen nonsense. especially
> if we're talking about a smug,
> k-addled guy hosting a teaching
> which people have paid significant
> amounts of money to attend.
---
I dunno, I think he got more into the perspective that it was better for people to go and see for themselves than becoming hung up on the metaphors of other people. I also treasure some of his "K-addled" teachings, such as the dry comment to a man in a workshop who alternately complained of being unable to make spiritual progress and then bragged about his new car. Lilly replied, "I hear you driving your car. I do not hear you driving yourself to change." The guy got angry, and maybe such a direct statement is a violation of the rules of social propriety...but hell, I think it's very Zen. smile.gif
---
> i realize you're not fishing for
> sympathy in bringing this up, but,
> anyway, my sincerest condolences;
> it's hard to imagine many things
> in life more painful/difficult
> than close ones', and particularly
> parents' suicides...bah...drag...
---
My father died, and then 5 months later, one of my best friends died on my birthday, at my birthday party. Two particularly powerful DXM trips enabled me to put these in some perspective. In the first, I entered into the mind of my father in the moments immediately preceding his death, and experienced deeply the pain he was feeling. It helped me to understand his actions somewhat better, even if it left me distraight for a few days. About two weeks later, I had an experience in which my 'essence' separated from my body, traveling at high speed down a tunnel and then through some sort of veil. On the other side was a sort of desert landscape, ocupied by everyone that I'd ever known who'd died. Behind them was some sort of portal leading to yet another world ("it's puzzle boxes all the way down"). My father came up, embraced me, and told me how much he'd missed me. I stammered, "But aren't you all dead?" Dad replied, "Cliff, you should know by now that no one ever dies."
---
> ...back to the argument, drug
> addiction/guns/suicide...i'm not
> sure i see the point you're trying
> to make.
---
"It is not the horse, but the pale rider."
---
> i'm talking about deaths occuring after
> a long period of involvement with
> substances...
---
Involvement which required continual choices on the part of the persons involved. Further, it has been my observation that many cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine users seem to have a sort of death fetish, and this is one reason why they abuse these particular compounds. To put it another way, this triad has gained the reputation of being deadly, naighty kicks - when one uses them, one is ingesting death directly into the body. To put it still another way, the vast majority of persons I have encountered who had serious heroin problems seemed to have been the type of person who was suicidally depressed, and who'd heard that heroin was a fun way to kill yourself.
---
> which may have begun as seemingly
> harmless experimentation before
> it developed into a more insidious
> pattern of abuse.
---
How many people IV heroin just out of curiosity?
---
> i guess you're trying to say that i'm
> guilty of demonizing the substances ?
---
Yes.
---
> and alcohol, say, doesn't kill people
> in and of itself, but rather the
> person's choices leading to abuse
> of the substance do?
---
Yes. A glass of wine a day is certainly not deadly, and is, in fact, beneficial to one's health.
---
> that's great; caffeine, and especially
> nicotine, lord knows, are very tough ones...
---
Nicotine is consistently ranked as more addictive than heroin.
---
> but i feel that you might be unfairly
> projecting your experiences onto others.
---
No. In addition to my own experiences, I have observed the drug habits of hundreds of friends and acquaintances, and read extensively in the literature. I also, at my mother's request, attended a 28 day in-patient rehab program whcih was, needless to say, chock full of bullshit.
---
> i read that book, and some of the
> passages about psychedelics raised
> flags for me.
---
Yes, for me as well. However, heavy abuse of LSD is not one of these.
---
> i think in some instances, either people
> were telling tall tales to rushkoff
---
I think the best instance of this is when an individual named "Becker" claims to have invetned 2C-B while high on mescaline, and then claims that 2C-B lasts longer and is more psychedelic than mescaline. "5-MAO-DMT" was another amusing example.
---
> or he was "embellishing" from his
> own end.
---
Less likely, in my own opinion.
---
> i'm glad you've been responding so
> painstakingly; obviously even in
> this "information age" there remain
> boatloads of myths and misinformation
> regarding psychedelics.
---
Quite true.
---
> & i know i've been cruel re lilly...
---
'Tis fine. Admittedly, many times he ended up playing the role of God's fool. But then again, haven't we all? If he made more mistakes than many other people, it's because he took more risks.
---
> but if he was/is truly an "extraterrestrial
> zen master" or something of that order,
> then i'm sure he would laugh it all off...
> and have compassion for my petty snarkiness.
---
I am sure of the same. I have a video of the Bridge Conference (held in 1991) where Lilly was giving a speech, and in the Q & A period someone mockingly asked him if he was still hearing voices in his head. There was then general laughter. Undeterred, Lilly replied: "Yes, ECCO entered my life and has remained part of it ever since."
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[David Orange]

walkaway,
thanks once again for your input. i notice that it took you a while to get back with this one-- it's almost as if you have a life or something! ;)

Originally posted by Walkaway:
---
"True enough. However, James Kent has written of psilocybin as being 'baiting and taunting' and I would have to say that my experience agrees."

hmmm...interesting...interesting...

---
> he, at any rate, felt it to be important
> enough to report it in his book.
---
"Which book, and where?"

i'm sorry; you're absolutely right-- i'm mistaken. i was confusing it with other negative comments he made re k in "the essential psychedelic guide". i guess that comment only appeared in an obituary/tribute that i read. there was also a posthumous interview with him published in trp/trip magazine in which he might have mentioned this...i need to go back and check.
---
> anyway, aren't we constantly hearing
> explorers, be they of k, dmt, whatever...
> tell us that the entities are decidedly
> not components of one's psyche, but are
> in fact separate, independent beings?
---
"I dunno about that. I've shot K, I've smoked DMT, I've encountered loads of entities on these and sundry other compounds...but I am not convinced of their 'existence.' On the other hand, I am not convinced of my own existence, so that should show you the type of person I am."

okay. in light of that i understand some of your other comments better, such as your remark that "the Other is not separate from us"...
---
> yeah, but i think you know what i'm
> driving at...some spiritual or
> metaphysical component to us, that is
> involved in connecting us to "other worlds"
---
"If such an essence exists, I fail to see what hypothetical detrimental actions material substances could exert on it."

well, when one considers the profound effects that these material substances appear to have on deep levels of our being, i don't think it's so far outside the realm of possibility. & certainly when people report of their profound drug experiences, they speak in terms of it affecting their souls in different ways...i don't think that they are being entirely metaphorical
in all cases

---
> well, obviously there are degrees of
> obnoxiousness; from merely being
> irritating, to completely violating
> social boundaries/rules of propriety.
---
"I think the Merry Pranksters covered that entire spectrum. Ken Kesey showed me footage of their bus trip wherein a tweaked-out Neal Cassady was ranting about the fourth dimension which is time, and then got up from the wheel and began walking back toward the camera to forcefully enunciate his point. At the last moment, Cassady realized he was supposed to be driving, and ran to the wheel just in time. Ken turned to us and said, "He'd been up for about three days at that point.""

wow, it must have been cool to have had the opportunity to see that footage... and hang out w/ken kesey. cool.

anyway, though, that was neal cassady, whom many people seemed to find obnoxious even when totally sober; plus we're talking speed...big difference there from mild-mannered non-psychopathic lilly on k.
---

> but in most cases i'd say that's
> pseudo-zen nonsense. especially
> if we're talking about a smug,
> k-addled guy hosting a teaching
> which people have paid significant
> amounts of money to attend.
---
"I dunno, I think he got more into the perspective that it was better for people to go and see for themselves than becoming hung up on the metaphors of other people. I also treasure some of his "K-addled" teachings, such as the dry comment to a man in a workshop who alternately complained of being unable to make spiritual progress and then bragged about his new car. Lilly replied, "I hear you driving your car. I do not hear you driving yourself to change." The guy got angry, and maybe such a direct statement is a violation of the rules of social propriety...but hell, I think it's very Zen. smile.gif "

i don't find that particular comment to be all that rude or obnxious or whatever...but nor do i find it to be particularly profound. maybe 'you had to be there'.
---
---
"My father died, and then 5 months later, one of my best friends died on my birthday, at my birthday party."

oh...man...
props to you for you still being here after dealing with that...

"Two particularly powerful DXM trips enabled me to put these in some perspective. In the first, I entered into the mind of my father in the moments immediately preceding his death, and experienced deeply the pain he was feeling. It helped me to understand his actions somewhat better, even if it left me distraight for a few days. About two weeks later, I had an experience in which my 'essence' separated from my body, traveling at high speed down a tunnel and then through some sort of veil. On the other side was a sort of desert landscape, ocupied by everyone that I'd ever known who'd died. Behind them was some sort of portal leading to yet another world ("it's puzzle boxes all the way down"). My father came up, embraced me, and told me how much he'd missed me. I stammered, "But aren't you all dead?" Dad replied, "Cliff, you should know by now that no one ever dies."

wow.
cool of you to share that personal story.
it's incredible to me; as i write this, my girlfriend is fighting off a cold that's accompanied by a nagging cough. to help her sleep she took some cough syrup containing dxm...it's hard to believe that's the same stuff that can have such incredibly profound effects...

> but i feel that you might be unfairly
> projecting your experiences onto others.
---
"No. In addition to my own experiences, I have observed the drug habits of hundreds of friends and acquaintances, and read extensively in the literature."

my experiences and observations of others are somewhat different, i think. or perhaps a better way of putting it is that our interpretations differ?

---"I also, at my mother's request, attended a 28 day in-patient rehab program whcih was, needless to say, chock full of bullshit."

i know that those things are ridiculously expensive and have a pretty high failure rate (hello rush limbaugh!) but i'm sure that they are of benefit to some folks...just like some hate 12 step groups, while others swear by them. i think "it's all good"...it's good that there are different approaches for different types of people. obviously there's much work that needs to be done, & this field is in its infancy.

what a drag that you went through a program that you felt was worthless for you...i assume that since you said you went at your mother's request, your life was in fine working order, anyway, and it was maternal hysteria of sorts?...

> i read that book, and some of the
> passages about psychedelics raised
> flags for me.
---
"Yes, for me as well. However, heavy abuse of LSD is not one of these."

yeah, i realize more and more how naive i am regarding people's patterns of drug use. psychedelics always presented very intense experiences for me, and when i heard the odd story of people who ate lsd like candy and had tripped hundreds of times, i always was a little incredulous...little did i realize how not uncommon such a useage pattern was/is.
---
> i think in some instances, either people
> were telling tall tales to rushkoff
---
"I think the best instance of this is when an individual named "Becker" claims to have invetned 2C-B while high on mescaline, and then claims that 2C-B lasts longer and is more psychedelic than mescaline."

yeah, i think that was the one that really made me want to throw the book across the room in disgust...i mean, i never fancied myself to be an expert in the field, but even i knew that was out-and-out horseshit. i couldn't believe that rushkoff didn't do better research; have better fact-checkers, or something! there it is, though, in print, courtesy of a major publishing house...for the ages...

"5-MAO-DMT" was another amusing example."

sigh...
---
> or he was "embellishing" from his
> own end.
---
"Less likely, in my own opinion."

yeah, i guess you're right. i just have trouble comprehending the motivations of people who fed him such nonsense...

---
> i'm glad you've been responding so
> painstakingly; obviously even in
> this "information age" there remain
> boatloads of myths and misinformation
> regarding psychedelics.
---
"Quite true."

and of course such misinformation/disinformation can work to ruin people's experiences...i know some of my own bad trips were partly fueled by fear based on myths i had heard...
---
> & i know i've been cruel re lilly...
---
"'Tis fine. Admittedly, many times he ended up playing the role of God's fool. But then again, haven't we all? If he made more mistakes than many other people, it's because he took more risks."

excellent point.
---
> but if he was/is truly an "extraterrestrial
> zen master" or something of that order,
> then i'm sure he would laugh it all off...
> and have compassion for my petty snarkiness.
---
"I am sure of the same. I have a video of the Bridge Conference (held in 1991) where Lilly was giving a speech, and in the Q & A period someone mockingly asked him if he was still hearing voices in his head. There was then general laughter. Undeterred, Lilly replied: "Yes, ECCO entered my life and has remained part of it ever since."

that's cool.
based on that, and, well, hell, most of the story of his life, i guess he was, in fact, truly a maverick...and for that quality alone, he most certainly gets my respect.

cheers!

[davidm]

Fascinating clash. Thanks.

is there a future for this compound, either in a therapeutic milieu, or as part of the investigative arsenal of serious independent psychonauts? I've found K on its own to be a bit onanistic, although I generally opt to lie in a dark room with a glass of mineral water, listening to concrete music rather than metaprogram, and I've never injected it.

For me, however, combined with other entheogens - particularly LSD - it becomes spectacularly impressive. IMHO it makes makes LSD better. I typically insufflate a tiny amount (50mg ish) 2 hours in and it has a remarkable effect. It seems to settle and ground the experience - pouring all the paints back in their pots - rubbing out the misty vaporous feel of LSD, becoming more phenethylamine in character (from my limited experience), much like medium dose 2-CT-7, really crystalline with shockingly deep moments. I always see it in my mind as a truly complementary colour mix - the burgundy red of LSD mixed with the silver grey of K. Highly recommended.

I have heard of others mixing with mushrooms for serious time-bending and bullet-time. Has anyone else tried K cocktails?

[ October 31, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: davidm ]

[Halfglass]

Walkaway and David: nice exchange, glad to be a fly on the wall when things get going like that. Walkaway: Been there with the NDE's. Are you doing closed-eye trips?

[Walkaway]

---
David, david, and Halfglass: I am sorry, but matters related to school, work, and my significant other prevented me from faithfully attending to this thread. This will be entirely corrected within the next three days. I look forward to continuing our conversation.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[Walkaway]

---
> that reminds me that people have killed
> while 'under the influence' of lsd, too...
---
Let us not forget the institutionalized use of psilocybian mushrooms in conjunction with human sacrifice in Aztec culture.
---
> right, of course...but if you were
> to consider a random sampling of
> 'serious' entheogenic researchers;
> people who actually bother to pick
> up a book or two before trying these
> substances, then the percentage would
> be pretty close to 100. (i hope).
---
Indeed. From their experiences we can conclude that ketamine has different safety requirements required than, say, LSD - and that acting in ignorance of these safety requirements can lead to some very real and very disturbing nastiness.
---
> it's remarkable that you've quoted
> and commented at length upon ram
> dass' follies while tripping
---
> ha, well, it's somewhat ironic, as i
> would actually probably tend to be
> more critical of ram dass than the
> average person...
---
I'm just surprised that his follies are not the stuff of legend. Lilly never jumped out of a window. Lilly never flew a plane while high on a psychedelic. Why does Lilly get remembered as the nutty one?
---
> anyway, i'm sure you can at least
> understand why lilly gets singled
> out in that manner in the popular
> perception--bottom line is, those
> folks may have all done
> dumb/dangerous things while tripping,
> but they didn't end up having nde's
> and all...
---
Or maybe they just didn't write about their close-calls.
---
> i forgot that aspect of the pcp story -
> that he neglected the dosage
> inequivalencies. more grist for the
> perception of lilly as bumbler?
---
If we want, we can air everbody's dirty laundry in this thread.
---
> isn't there a part in one of the lilly
> books that talks about how, just after
> the memorial service for his wife, he
> goes up to his hotel room and injects
> himself with k?...i find that somewhat
> disturbing.---
---
Doktor Dikk Dass was on LSD while at his mother's funeral.
---
> yeah, i guess i was throwing out there
> for speculation that there's some spooky
> metaphysical warning within these
> cautionary tales, while your
> interpretation is simply 'be careful;
> don't be reckless'.
---
True that.
---
> i think you can maybe understand my
> perspective, though; why i am a little
> haunted by k, after reading about
> marcia moore's death (and the
> 'mysterious' circumstances surrounding
> it-- her remains not being discovered
> for several years and so forth), then
> learning of d.m. turner's, and then
> recalling lilly's close brushes with
> death.
---
The fact remains that the vast majority of persons using ketamine and other dissociatives don't experience such effects.
---
> right. i've wondered myself if such were
> the case in turner's death (and moore's,
> as well).
---
I have wondered this about the 2C-T-7 deaths.
---
> well, it's admirable that you are so
> forthcoming with family members.
---
I am not as forthcoming as I would like to be, sadly. I am quite honest with my mother, and to some degree with my siblings, and I'm sure the rest of my family suspects (and gossips about) all sorts of things... I dunno, I keep thinking of writing a letter to all my relatives explaining in-depth that I've rejected Christianity in favor of spiritualities that work.
---
More forthcoming tommorow when I am less tired. Tonight was a nightmarish ordeal @ work.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

[David Orange]

"...I keep thinking of writing a letter to all my relatives explaining in-depth that I've rejected Christianity in favor of spiritualities that work."

ugh. there should be form letters for such purposes, kinda like those ez do it yourself wills and other legal paperwork that they sell in some stores.

thanks, walkaway.

great signature, by the way. heh-heh!