Psilocybin use definitely changed me for the better. The first time I did it was one of the most eye-opening and impacting experiences in my life. Since my first trip, I've tried to work it into my life at least 1-2 times a year. Every time I feel like I learn something new and/or come out a better person by seeing certain aspects of life in a new light. It's something you only want to try in controlled environments when your head is in the proper place (no hidden depression or anything lurking in the back of your mind), but when done right, with the right people, it can be an amazing experience and I highly recommend to everyone with the proper mindset.
The emphasis is on: done right, with the right people.
There is a reason why drugs are prohibited in many countries. People don't use them "correctly" and can become messed up pretty heavily.
I took shrooms when I was 18. After an initial phase of a lot of hardly controllable laughter, I experienced the strongest fear that I ever had in my life. Basically, the fear to remain stuck on this trip - nothing unusual by the way, as I figured out later by reading reports from other people. The main fear for me was to be stuck in this situation where your brain isn't filtering anything anymore. I was literally sitting around UNABLE to do anything. I mean, somehow I knew how to do a more complicated thing (like building another joint), but somehow I was incapable of performing the necessary steps. It was frightening, especially since there was no supervisor who could lead me out of this spiral of fear. The fear lasted only for 2 hours or so, then the trip was over as I fell asleep.
But I had panic attacks for another 6 months. Also a very typical time frame for many people. No fun. Stressful places, loud dogs, everything noise sort of made me feel anxious. On the other hand, it was a time where I thought about myself A LOT. I mean, really a lot. After 6 months, I somehow emerged with new self-confidence which grew a lot over time way beyond the self-confidence I had before (which could also be just a side-effect of getting older, I don't know).
So, now I wouldn't like to miss that experience. I don't know how it changed me, but I certainly do recommend that people should never try hallucinogenic drugs without supervision - people who can help you mentally to escape states of fear.
And of course all the information on Erowid for each substance is key. Psilocybin isn't especially dangerous, but as you said if you do it wrong you can definitely end up with anxiety/depression that lasts a year or two.
Yes, definitely go through your first trip with a knowledgeable supervisor. Someone who can guide you and talk you out if you seem to be heading into a bad trip. One can always be talked out of a bad trip.
There is a reason why drugs are prohibited in many countries.
I used to think that all educated adults had read the same books about history I had, but I was surprised when I was in law school that my professor of criminal law and criminal procedure had never heard about why drug laws in east Asia and southeast Asia are very harsh. The painful experience of China after defeat in the Opium Wars means that several countries of Asia view promotion of drug use among their populace as an instrument of foreign colonialist oppression. The zero-tolerance policies (including the death penalty for possession of quite small amounts of prohibited drugs) in those countries flow directly from a historical experience in which a drugged population became easier rather than harder to oppress. On historical grounds, and on observation of the Grass Roots Party (a political party in my state supporting legalization of marijuana), I'm not at all sure that easier access to drugs makes a populace happier or more free.
I disagree. Most drug laws have little basis in any kind of rational motivation, in the East or West. Though I know about the historical events you're referring to, I don't think they're as connected as you imply.
>There is a reason why drugs are prohibited in many countries. People don't use them "correctly" and can become messed up pretty heavily.
There's another reason they're prohibited as well - users tend to think a lot about interpersonal relations, society, power structures, etc.
Sorry to hear about your panic attacks, I've gone through the same thing as well, but likely a decade after I last took drugs of any kind. They're not fun. I sometimes wonder if maybe I had smoked a bit during my stressful times that I would have been able to put things in better perspective without having to resort to real mind altering drugs from the pharmacist. Who knows...
One of the (possibly) profound effects of psychedelic experiences is the dissolution of boundaries-- a heightening of the dissociative pattern matching behavior that we call human cognition to the point that everything seems relevant to everything and nothing is really different from anything else.
To an extent this is trivially true, and it certainly inspires a lot of not-too-insightful discussion about how we're all stars, man, but it can also point out the important but non-obvious fact that your neighbor is a person just like you are, having exactly the same experience of consciousness that you are, and so is the President, and so is that bum on the street, and so is that person in the country across the river that you're supposed to hate. She's just like you, and you can't hate yourself. So it shouldn't be surprising (for this reason among others) that people who smoke a lot of weed find the idea of war to be a waste of time when, really, we could all just be relaxing with some good friends, music and food.
Is it really that hard to imagine that this idea, whether brought on by drugs, education, or meditation, is threatening to the few in power who use these artificial divisions to control the many?
Obviously not, but the original Controlled Substances Act, the beginning of our modern War on Drugs, can be reasonably inferred as direct response to the anti-war movement.
Ahh yes, I forgot to mention the importance of an experienced "babysitter" for your first trip or three, until you're confident and fully comprehend where your mind will be going for the ensuing 3-6 hours.
Of course, and I wasn't attempting to be antagonistic. I was merely pointing out that when you say you feel it "changed me for the better" in your original post, that could be for one of two reasons. I was simply curious as to whether you could determine whicgh reason(s) applied in your case.
I definitely noticed myself becoming more open (as mentioned in the article), much more laid back and less neurotic (though the article mentioned this not being affected), and just a calmer, more rational, loving person in general. I also noticed a deeper appreciation of nature and art that stemmed from experiences while on hallucinogens. I also like to think I've grown in creativity, but that may be the result of other experiences and goals in my life. As a previous commenter mentioned, the drugs help you start to explore the ideas of how everything is related, how people all have the same experiences of consciousness, etc and you begin to appreciate how tied together our world and ecosystem is. Those are just a few things I've noticed on my part. I really believe more people thinking in this manner would be highly beneficial to humankind, though I'm biased :)
This is where I find this train of thought becomes so unenlightened and bogs down in hedonism. There is no such thing as "your life" seperate or distinct from the lives of other people and certainly not something over which you can claim as a possession.
That's why you should try meditation a go before you even think of psychedelics imho. Try to get what your subconscious mind is trying to tell you. There is a simple test for that: is there something you don't want to think about?
Certainly true, but I feel like you always know when you have some issues lurking in the back of your mind. I once did some hallucinogens after going through a breakup and a small bout of loneliness in which I wasn't entirely happy with myself. Needless to say, it wasn't a fun trip at all. I tried to convince myself I was fine and in a good place, but with any real introspection, I should have known I wasn't in the right mindset going into it.
I aslo had experiences which made me a much more open and eclectic person. I was about 23 years old and found the experiences to be overwhelmingly positive. At the time (70's) the counter culture was well underway and there were many fellow travellers who would advise on the importance of the setting and also (sounds kinda corny now) that one should make the whole thing sacred and not treat it as just a buzz. Also there were many apocriphal stories of people who had gone on trips and hadn't come back.
I once had a single, very high dose Psilocybin experience which lead to a lasting change that was very much for the worse.
Having had my perception of reality profoundly changed by the experience I began to question my senses on a regular basis, with associated anxiety and panic. Then there were also the nightmares where I was tripping, would wake up, have something weird / trippy happen have a "world is ending" anxiety attack complete with ears ringing so loudly its painful. Then I'd wake up from that, with similar results, only to wake up from that. Never really sure if I was fully awake or not.
Thankfully after 18 months or so, it went away.
Of course, your mileage my vary :-)
I personally am in favour of this type of research but just wanted to share my experience. Its not all beer and skittles!
To echo that point... my pure-shroom experiences were generally positive, but one time mixing with MDMA resulted in a very strong experience that by the end involved some paranoia about keeping my thoughts and public utterances separate. That paranoia would occasionally mildly recur the next year or so. That's now many years ago, but I still wonder if crazy street people talking to themselves just mixed too many things, too many times creating permanent confusion.
Not fun :(
I've had two months of depersonalization after a psylocybin take. Lowered intellect, unability to stop the flow of thoughts, anxiety of being schizophrenic, no emotions except for art, seeing a monster when looking at the mirror. Sensorial defects became readily apparent which is annoying but useful. I still see coloured points sometimes.
The next experience was entirely positive though (outdoor, friends).
i took mushrooms once, and documented my experience. i've gone back and re-read it several times, and each time i do so, i both laugh like crazy and realize i was getting glimpses of ideas i'm only now starting to understand.
Thanks for sharing this. This is literally a legal proxy for understanding what kind of changes the article is talking about, so I think this is plenty relevant :)
Somewhat odd to have used OJ as the mixer; vitamin-C is often considered to accelerate the breakdown of psychoactive substances (especially those like MDMA and LSD), so would normally be avoided until you feel you're 'done' and want things to end.
I've always been told it enhances the experience...
Anyway, it doesn't follow that faster breakdown makes the trip end... could be that the very process of breaking down the active substance produces the effects desired, and the vitamin-C acts as a catalyst to "even out" the experience.
You might be confusing the OJ/vitamin C with the properties of grapefruit juice, which is well-established to alter the properties of various liver enzymes, particularly those which typically metabolise psychedelic / hallucinogenic drugs. Wikipedia has a brief blurb about it:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_drugs...
Actually, it does mention orange juice as containing flavonoids which may have some (albeit lesser) effect on drug metabolism.
Yeah. Actually, it looks like there is mention in the literature (Simon Wills Drugs of abuse, 2nd Ed, 2005)[1] of vitamin C in fruit juice, or Ammonium Chloride to acidify urine to promote sequestration and removal of amphetamine metabolites.
I'm not sure if/how that translates to other drugs like Psilocybin, but it does raise some interesting questions.
Do you by any chance have a source regarding the original
"enhances the experience" statement? (for my own curiosity really - I'm not saying that you're wrong or misinformed)
No real source, but googling "vitamin c mushrooms ehance" brings up lots of forum posts etc. In my case, this knowledge is just the sort of folk-wisdom picked up from a misspent youth :). I have heard lots of stuff to explain it, but all of that falls squarely in the "probably pseudoscience" and [citation needed] categories.
Vitamin-C does virtually nothing for the trip. It's all placebo.
Now, if you grind the mushrooms up and let them site in lemon juice for 30+ minutes. That will definitely accelerate the time you reach the peak of the trip. The acids in the lemon juice break down the mushrooms so the stomach can digest them more quickly.
That's pretty harsh. I bet you Huxley's original notes for Doors Of Perception were probably jumbled too. But both DoP and Mark's notes allude to the same thing: without a valve on our consciousness, we'd just sit around all day and be blown away by the creases in our jeans.
Seconded, thanks for sharing Mark. A number of friends have gone through life altering trips such as you describe, there appear to be positive things that can be gleaned from psychedelics about oneself.
That said I had one friend who didn't come back and ended up in an institution for a period of months. He had a number of underlying issues that the drug brought to the fore. It was a horrible experience for all involved.
Would you elaborate on this? Did he come out of it twelve months in? it's rare to find negative commentary on psilocybin on the internet. Only a couple warnings in the thread now.
He took some at a party I was at and freaked out. I nursed him for a few hours, he babbled the same phrase over and over until his housemates came and picked him up. I've been told since that he had freaked out before and had been fine once he came down so they treated this incident the same. Took him home and sat with him till he calmed down and put him to bed.
The next morning he was still acting strangely, not making sense etc. They kept an eye on him that day figuring he was just tired and worn out. But the next day he was worse so they got him into a psych hospital after some difficulty (he wouldn't go at first). He was put on anti-psychotics and stayed there for a couple of months.
He was released back into his parent's care, he is from the UK and this happened in Australia. So he went back to the UK and reportedly has found god and is doing fine. (apart from the religion thing ;)
It's alright to disagree strongly with someone else but mutual respect is one of the attributes that keeps HN an open and interesting discussion forum.
It's interesting to me that you believe you can achieve the same kind of inner thoughts from reading books. There are many people here that have come out from trips feeling more enlightened than when they entered them. Remember also that you are in the comments for an article about a study in which it is said to increase openness. You're telling people that it won't enlighten? Do you disagree with the results of the study?
The belief you're holding is too strong since you've not been able to demonstrate any evidence for it.
Lol, I don't think it's enlightenment, but I experienced the feeling without drugs first. In the Buddhist tradition, it's known as kensho or satori (technically different, but similar enough for our purposes.) In either case, it's definitely worthwhile and can't be learned from a book.
I have no issue with whatever it is you posited after your masturbatory experience. It's just that I don't find your epiphany particularly deep, nor do I see how LSD was even necessary for you to arrive at your destination of nowhere.
You know what actually makes a difference in life? Acquire knowledge, apply that knowledge, make connections and use all of that to HELP other people and change the world. Tripping on shrooms by yourself or with your fellow dunderheads does nothing for anyone, yourself included. Stop pretending it does.
You sound like exactly the kind of close-minded person who would benefit from a hallucinogenic trip.
The reality is, you have no idea what a trip is like. You're building an image of what it might be like based on your own actual experiences, and it seems pretty lame, but that image is just that: an image; a picture; not the real thing.
And, much like life cannot be experienced just by looking at pictures, drugs cannot be experienced just by reading trip reports.
If you can figure out ways to try crack, heroin and motor oil safely, with no harmful physical side-effects and no risk of addiction, then why not? What's wrong with trying them? Do you have an ideological opposition to new experiences?
The problem with crack, heroin and motor oil is that two of them are relatively likely to get you addicted and then damage your body as you abuse them, and one is likely to kill you outright if consumed.
Psylocibin and LSD, on the other hand, are basically harmless (at a reasonable dose) from a physical standpoint, and non-addictive. So what's your rationale for not trying them?
You might argue you won't try them because most people won't try them - well, that may be a point, but a lot of people have tried hallucinogenics, especially in the 60s, and the vast (99.99+%) majority had a good time, is perfectly fine and was happy about the experience. So social proof isn't your reasoning for not trying them.
Which leaves the law. Perhaps you won't try them because they're illegal. Fine. Would you not try tomatoes if they were illegal? If you would try tomatoes even though they might be illegal, then what's the big deal about hallucinogenics?
Someone like you almost always pops up in every internet discussion on hallucinogenic drugs - they're always pretty universally dismissed as what you would call, 'wrong', by everybody who actually knows what they are talking about.
Well, sexuality isn't the worst analogy one could make with drug use. Like sexual experience, psychedelic experience can be life alteringly profound and positive but is almost universally unprofound and vulgar when put into words. I enjoyed the parent's story both for it's entertainment and because I related to his experience.
I'm an avid reader, but experiences of these natures absolutely cannot be replicated with a book. I've never seen someone walk differently after reading a book the way someone walks different the day they've slept with a new lover. Likewise, it's impossible for prose to attempt to do what drugs and sexuality do - subtly suspend many of our basic assumptions simultaneously and thereby direct our attention to many fundamental blindspots in our thinking and experience.
Be careful - thinking that only well articulated sentences are the only valid form of intellectual stimulation is something of a logical fallacy common among brainy people.
> You know what actually makes a difference in life?
Taking action makes a difference in life. People don't take action just for its own sake. They have motivations. Where do this motivations come from? Ultimately the mind. The mind can be influenced by books and general knowledge, as well as experiences. Do you contest that if one did the same thing twice (once on drugs, the other not) that those experiences would different? Who's to say that the experience on the drugs can't be the one that inspires someone to do something with their life (or in this case, to alter their way of viewing the world)? You? What authority do you have in such a field? What are you credentials to make such proclamations?
You could claim the same about getting high off of glue since that affects the mind too. Seriously, what every day experience /doesn't/ affect your mind?
My point stands on its own. Taking action makes a difference, dropping acid does nothing for anyone. End.
So your argument is that (1) since every drug/substance/experience affects your mind everything is the same, (2) consuming something does not create so therefore has no utility to anybody: the only utility is 'taking action'.
These points do not stand on their own.
Everything might affect your mind but that doesn't mean that every experience is the same.
Consuming something may not make a difference to other people's lives, but it might give direct utility to yourself (for example eating food, drinking water, reading a book, watching a film.) This article was about an increase in openness. If you become more open as a result of doing something then indirectly your future actions might hold more utility to the people that you affect.
> Taking action makes a difference, dropping acid does
> nothing for anyone. End.
Converted to:
> Taking action makes a difference, <blank> does
> nothing for anyone. End.
You could insert anything into this sentence. Heck, I could insert "reading a book" into that sentence because "reading a book" is not "taking action," yet reading a book was one of your examples of a 'good' thing to do earlier in this thread.
You're ignoring the possibility that something that 'does nothing for anyone' can directly influence someone to take actions which do something for someone. E.g. if someone drops acid/watches a documentary/reads a book and it directly inspires them to open a soup kitchen for the homeless, how does that fit into your world view? Are the two things completely separate and without causation? Or is it only the influences related to drugs which hold this place in your mind (i.e. can never have a good outcome, so therefore if there is a good outcome it can't be because of the drugs)?
So everything's on the level, I should probably mention that I've downvoted just about everything you've said in this thread except this post, which strikes my curiosity.
Would you consider meditation equally as pointless as dropping acid? How about worshiping a God, or Gods? Sitting alone in a park? Writing a journal? Looking through a yearbook or perhaps a photo album? Are these things all pointless in your mind as well?
Taking actions to alter one's self can easily improve the ability to take actions that affect others. A simple example: lifting weights so you can be a more effective fire fighter. There are many others, including the ingestion of chemicals to alter mind state. Oh, I don't know: like drinking that cup of coffee in the morning, the one that gets you through your emails and keeps you from being a grumpy asshole all day?
Posting to a forum with your self-righteous, unapproachable attitude is the DEFINITION of masturbatory. You clearly cannot politely engage others on this topic, so why bother commenting here to simply tell the druggies how you feel about their petty dalliances? To make yourself feel better?
edt....I respect your opinion, but I would respect it even more if you had experienced even once what people are discussing here. From the way you write, I know you haven't.
If you have been through it, it's up to you to judge whether it is good or bad, for overall society, or even at the individual level. But as it is, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
We have a word in our vocabulary: transcendental
Some people would say we don't really need that word. No one that has taken a psychedelic experience would ever say that. It is truly out of this world. It is up to you to determine if it is beneficial for yourself.
Assuming you don't think it's beneficial for yourself, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you think others should be denied this experience, if they harm no others. (assuming you are in favor of prohibition)
Nowhere did I say I support the war on drugs, prohibition, or any such rubbish. You are free to engage in whatever stupid activity you so choose. Just don't try to claim it was some kind of fulfilling accomplishment, when it was merely shallow recreation.
Why would you feel it's so important to belittle someone else's experience as "merely shallow recreation" when they obviously feel it meant more than that?
You know what actually makes a difference in life? Acquire knowledge, apply that knowledge, make connections and use all of that to HELP other people and change the world.
But you know what makes a difference to the experience of bring alive? Changing the way you interpret experiences.
(you're very negative for someone who claims Helping people is the only thing which makes a difference).
And since when are people only allowed deep epiphanies, but not shallow ones, even assuming you can judge that from outside?
if you are correct that my use of mushrooms has not and will not do anything for anyone, why are you telling me this?
if anyone reads what you have written and benefits from your insight, then you must have been wrong - because you wouldn't have written what you did if i hadn't posted this document detailing my experience with mushrooms.
You're missing the point here. The author was typing from a world where only a few have been, where things melt into the floor, music turns into objects, objects turns into people, and your mind is on a huge emotional rollercoaster. Imagine being fired, then getting a date, then you remember your sister died (many years ago), then you realize you are awesome, then you feel AWFUL because you said something you shouldn't have at that party two months ago, then you realize everything is actually one whirling organism of energy and you can never die, then you hear loud noises and think it's the cops and get scared. All of this in a very very short span of time.
You start sketching or typing and you realize you can see blood flowing through your hands, and then you realize you're actually an animal for whom it's hard to form coherent thoughts because everything is just so wobbly and undefined. Then you become amazed at how human language is actually a form of learned "symbols->sounds" synesthesia. And writing is "sound->visuals" synesthesia.
People have pissed their pants from fear on psychedelics, the fact that the author of the document was able to jot down his experience is a remarkable addition to the knowledge of humans.
The phrase "measured on a widely used and scientifically validated personality inventory" jumps out at me. What does that really mean?
Myers-Briggs is 'widely used' and proponents would probably argue it has been 'empirically validated' (by this one study no one can reproduce...). Myers-Briggs still lacks the "retest reliability" necessary for this sort of analysis.
In fact, in most personality tests, you'd expect wild swings in personality without drugs, even by just waiting a day.
Now, stop giving any attention to campy press release results. I don't even really disagree with the thesis here, but without a full description of the methods, and probably a metanalysis of previous work in this field, the 'canned results' buzzers should be ringing loudly in all of our heads.
I'm not surprised. Given the number of people who claim hallucinogenic drugs have had a massive, lasting impact on their lives, I expected to see empirical support of same at some point.
It's sad that the War on Drugs has made conducting research of this kind so difficult; It has the potential to provide powerful insights into how our minds work.
Reading a "good" book definitely has lasting personality changes for me. I can safely say that at-least 15 of the 22 books I have read so far this year, had lasting effect on my personality.
Changes in these traits ... were larger in magnitude than changes typically observed in healthy adults over decades of life experiences, the scientists say.
Clearly most people don't read good books, or scientists would have seen evidence of their radical personality-changing effect.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I would say it is certainly true that most people don't read good books. Most people don't read books, in general. Of those who do, most read for entertainment (like me), rather than seeking out great books to have read.
No sarcasm. I have read good books (I think), but am pretty sure that they didn't modify my personality. Normally they result in a couple of days of thinking "wow, that was a good book".
I think that a "good book" in the sense used above is a book where you spend the next coupla days thinking about the new ideas from the book, or the new vantage on a subject you thought you understood, or examining your life in light of what you just read.
"Feeling Good" by David Burns. Sounds like a pop-psych title, but it is not. At 28 years of age, I am fairly certain this is the most important book I have ever and will ever read in my entire life (but then I desperately needed it - it is the user's manual to my brain that has allowed me to debug so much of my problematic thought processes).
I will second this. I read it over 20 years ago, when I was 17, and it changed my life. It is basically a friendly introduction to how to apply cognitive therapy to yourself.
I've read a lot of books in my life that I said "Wow" about, but not many that I still say "Wow" about 20 years later.
I was about to say I envy you for having 10 extra years to apply clearer thinking, but the funny thing is I discovered the book years ago and wasn't interested in getting past the first chapter. It was only when I crashed hard due to some messy circumstances that I realised I needed to go back to it and read it properly (and to perform the exercises!).
I agree with the 'analytically oriented' part, although I've been wondering recently if that description is not just a indication of somebody who's willing to work systematically through something and apply it consistently over a course of time.
People who don't realise that change is difficult will seek out books that promise merely reading something that hadn't known about before and simple attitude shifts will bring about change (hence the market for "The Secret" and its ilk).
I understand this because that was my default thinking too. In time, experience led me to identifying this hidden belief and challenging it. Then I stumbled on my #2 book which describes the model for change that I use: "Changing for Good" by Prochaska et al. Just as with "Feeling Good", there are so many pages I'd read and think "Ahh I know exactly when I fall into THAT trap".
I read "Way of the Peaceful Warrior: A Book That Changes Lives" back in high school, and it made a profound positive difference in the way that I view the world.
I recommended it to my roommate a few years ago though, and I read it again after he was done and found it to be super cheesy and slightly pretentious. My roommate seemed to like it, but I don't know if I would really recommend it to a grown adult anymore.
I'm sure there are a number of books that could make you very angry/bitter/cynical towards your government depending on the country (and depending on whether or not you already feel this way).
Perhaps something about the economics of the drug trade, how the War on Drugs affects it, and some statistics on how effective the War on Drugs has been thus far (for starters).
I do believe there is some positive wisdom to be found in the bible - especially in the teachings of Jesus, and I tell you that as an agnostic atheist. Pity only a tiny fraction of the people who call themselves Christians actually act on those teachings.
Very true. Both offer the user an extreme vision, far outside their normal realm of experience. Of course, reading a book on psilocybin can be rather difficult.
It's regrettable that the HN submission about this that reached the front page for sustained discussion is based on a press release rather than on follow-up by independent journalists. Suffice it to say that this is an interesting preliminary study finding, but it needs a lot of refinement and quite a bit of replication before serving as a basis for self-medication by HN readers.
Earlier HN submissions based on journalistic reports of same study:
In general, press release services are just a guide to look for independent accounts of someone's newly announced study finding. The researcher will always be enthusiastic about his or her new finding, but a good journalist (a rarity, I acknowledge, when it comes to science reporting) will provide perspective and lessen the gee-whiz factor in the researcher's announcement via press release.
'Nearly all of the participants in the new study considered themselves spiritually active (participating regularly in religious services, prayer or meditation).'
...
'In the study, the change occurred specifically in those volunteers who had undergone a "mystical experience,"... He defines "mystical experience" as among other things, "a sense of interconnectedness with all people and things accompanied by a sense of sacredness and reverence."'
So they took a bunch of people prone to mystical experiences and found when you give them hallucinogenics that they have further mystical experiences?
It is pretty common to read or hear about spiritual, religious or mystical experiences even from ardent atheists under hallucinogens. That evidence raises a very interesting philosophical question.
It is common to you. But who are you? And therein lies the rub.
Anecdotal evidence isn't useful when it comes to research like this: I feel that the experimental design is flawed by not balancing out this very significant variable to be representative of the population at large (estimates vary, but the non-religious make up from 2-20% of the population depending who you ask and how you define the question).
My experience is that a significant portion of people in the world do not identify themselves as spiritually active and that people these people do not have such "mystical experiences", whether exposed to hallucinogenics or not.
Experiments with psychedelics are not really possible because psychedelics present the intellectual paradox: Experiments are based on observational evidence and psychedelics change the nature of observation itself.
The only thing you can do is questionnaires like the topic study.
"So they took a bunch of people prone to mystical experiences and found when you give them hallucinogenics that they have further mystical experiences?"
The people they recruit aren't really much more prone to mystical experiences than anyone else, they're just trying to find volunteers who are psychologically stable and have a support network in case things go poorly.
There's only 20 or so people in the field, and they all help each other to get their studies approved. I think that Rick Strassman is the one who came up with this idea, and he writes about it a bit in his book DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Then all the other investigators started doing this as well. Roland Griffiths may have also talked about this in one of his talks, I forget.
Psilocybin and other psychoactive drugs of the sort somehow affect how we see and think about things. I'm surprised more isn't being done to research these. If it can have such a profound effect on perception and personality, research into psychoactives could reveal insights into how we think and how our personalities work. Fascinating stuff.
And, it could undermine the last few decades of anti-drug propagandizing by the government, DARE, etc. If the government can't justify its War On Drugs, the billions of dollars funding it[1] would have to go somewhere else, and I'm sure the military (and other recipients of this budget) would rather keep that cash flowing.
I'm completely with you. These hallucinogenics have a growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to their substantial, measurable, repeatable benefits. It's a crying shame that they're still being lumped in with the other destructive, unhealthy, justifiably illegal substances.
Much of this scientific evidence--enough to incite further research and almost enough to put the lie to the "no currently accepted medical use" criterion for Schedule I drugs--is decades old and often predated prohibition.
Consider how many of those problems would go away. Drugs fund crime because drugs are crime; drugs fund organized crime because getting them from point A to point B requires an organized network.
I thought this type of research had been outlawed.
Glad it still occurs. I see a lot of potential for this sort of stuff both in term of developing new therapies, but also in the sense of doing controlled experiments to better understand perception and cognition in humans.
Many smart people I know try to work in a trip on mushrooms once a year or so. Many of them are folks who don't generally even smoke weed or drink regularly, which surprised me.
I think it is a good idea, and I try to do it, too.
But, I have a healthy respect for the potential downside of a psilocybin experience, too. Many years ago, I ate some shrooms before a concert at the L.A. Coliseum. There were some thuggish types and an air of violence in the parking lot, and that was enough to set my trip down a bad road. An hour later, I experienced a dark stadium full of bloody froth-mouthed humans, along with some other lizardish creatures, killing and eating each other, to the ear-splitting sound of huge metal sawblades grinding against each other, while I huddled in my seat unable to move. It seemed to go on forever, but after it was over I realized it was only 3-4 hours.
That experience was only in my mind, but it still had a lasting impact on me, something like what I imagine being caught up in a murderous orgy of cannibalism really would. For weeks afterwards, while glad to be back in the real world, I was still nervous and averse to sudden noises, had many nightmares, and was generally less happy. Eventually those effects diminished, and I don't think I suffer from any kind of permanent damage (although, how can you really know).
But I now make sure to prepare a calm stress-free environment before doing psilocybin.
It is important that you have someone else there, preferably someone sober or at least more sober than you. You need a baseline to calibrate your sense of what is real and what isn't, so you don't get lost in your own head. This is very important.
When you are really experienced and no longer have any anxiety about what lurks inside your subconscious, only then is it advisable to trip alone.
No, the two implications are that 1. You should be somewhere you feel safe. Preferably with someone you feel safe. and 2. It is better to be outside in nature. (1) is always spoken of as being crucial and (2) is something that is oft repeated. I don't have any experience myself to say why (2) is so often suggested.
The whole being outside in nature thing is because of the character of the visual perceptual distortions that occur on psychedelics.
Basically it perturbs the brain's pattern recognition systems, and causes them to look much more strongly and insistently for patterns and regularities in the input. Therefore, to get the best effect, one should feed in highly irregular images, such as the messy, fractal-ish geometry of nature.
When you look at tree bark or grass or clouds on psilocybin, your brain tries furiously to see a pattern or regularity in it, and as a result your perception of it constantly shifts and rearranges.
When you stay indoors and look at manmade things with human-conceived geometric shapes, the patterns are already there and your brain sees them immediately. At best this is boring, and at worst it can cause you to become fixated in a way that is quite uncomfortable.
This isn't the most eloquently worded explanation but I'm sure most people here can tell what I'm talking about. Psychedelics have a lot to teach us about the workings of perceptual cognition as well as about more spiritual matters.
"An hour later, I experienced a dark stadium full of bloody froth-mouthed humans, along with some other lizardish creatures, killing and eating each other, to the ear-splitting sound of huge metal sawblades grinding against each other, while I huddled in my seat unable to move."
Bear in mind that if you are a generally grounded and lucid person, it is entirely possible to experience things as extreme as this while never once thinking that it's really happening.
Sitting in the middle of a university campus watching it being torn apart by terrifying non-euclidian-shaped monsters from beyond the sky is really fucking cool as long as you never forget that it's just a drug experience. It's like being in the middle of the best action scifi movie ever.
I am not favorable to unregulated use of drugs. I've known a couple drug-users, and been around quite a few. For whatever reason, their lives were/are not good. Success (in any realm) did not seem to be theirs. There seemed to be an unwholesomeness that pervaded their lives.
Now, that is anecdotal datum, and it is of course reasonable and plausible that an analytical and careful approach to the business produces a better effect than simply taking bong hits for the lulz.
Therapeutic drug use, IMO, should be investigated with all due scientific process and rigor.
Which drugs are you talking about? There's a wide range here; something like LSD is not as dangerous as, say, methamphetamine or tobacco.
Also, you're ignoring the possibility that the "unwholesomeness" of their lives, and general propensity for failure, caused their regular drug use, rather than vice versa.
It doesn't sound like you're being entirely honest in your reasoning here.
I just took the test here http://www.123test.com/personality-test/ , which appears to measure this "openness" trait, and it says I'm already on the far end of open. My tradition doesn't contain, and I don't think I've ever experienced, "sartori", but if I ever get a tinge of boredom, I start tying to imagine the scale and complexity of the subatomic and relativistic models of the phenomena I'm experiencing (e.g., photons as probability waves moving at light speed and then an infinitesimal fraction of them collapsing in interactions with atoms in my retina), and I'm instantly fascinated. So the question is, would a psychedelic experience really change me?
If anyone is interested in learning more about the science of psychedelics, I'd recommend checking out the Horizons conference if you're going to be in NYC on Oct. 16th:
Bear in mind that the trip reports on erowid suffer a massive self selection bias.
Theyre not biased towards positive or negative experiences, just towards incredibly earnest depictions of the drug experience. People don't bother to write up the boring shit.
First, these drugs aren't "hallucinogens". They're psychedelics (mind-revealing). A hallucination is a false perception which the person believes to be real; visuals are perceptions that the person knows are not real, such as "light shows". Except at very high doses, these drugs don't produce hallucinations per se. Other drugs can, but LSD and psilocybin generally do not. Ok, that may be a pedantic note but the term "hallucinogen" is incorrect and I think it's important to point that out, because much of the stigma associated with these drugs is the misconception that they generally produce true hallucinations (which are extremely dangerous, except for the kind that occur in the 8-hour-long catatonic state that the body and brain require each day).
Second, I'm 28 and I've known a lot of people who've used these drugs. The dangers are real. I'm not saying, "Don't do them." I am saying that if you choose to do so, you're on the frontier of something whose upsides are intensely personal and difficult to measure (this doesn't make them "not real", not in the least) and whose dangers are serious. Then again, so are the dangers of alcohol, which is legal and socially accepted.
It's important to understand, even though that attitude is mostly wrong, why society holds negative views toward this sort of drug use. It's because the upsides (positive personal experiences) are invisible except to the user, while the downsides (psychological damage) are quite visible and affect other people. Also, most of society sees absolutely no distinction between pleasure-seeking, stupid, and possibly self-destructive drug use (cocaine, heroin, inhalants, methamphetamine) and exploratory drug use (LSD, psilocybin). Most of us know that there's a world of difference between those two patterns of use and the types of people who pursue them, but most of society has no clue. They think people use LSD because it's "fun" and as a party drug, not as a means for growth.
Guilt and anxiety are two psychological hurdles to positive drug experiences. As for guilt, I explained why society considers drug use to be "morally wrong", not because that attitude is right but because one needs to understand it. If you've internalized it, it's something you're up against and need to resolve before you touch a single drug. You should examine your own morality and make sure you're 100% OK with what you're about to do. If you have reservations, don't do it. Don't ever use drugs because of "peer pressure" either, because it's always OK not to use drugs (you're not missing out on that much). But if you do decide to use a drug, don't spend a single second of thought on that guilt. It's now in your body, and it will leave, and there's not much you can do. But I'm prepared to say that, no, drug use does not make you a bad person. :) It may be unwise in many circumstances, but it doesn't make you "bad".
Anxiety is more of an issue. If you have issues with anxiety, depression, or panic, you should probably stay away from psychedelic drugs outright. This includes alcohol. I developed panic disorder in the least "druggy" means possible (working on Wall Street through a nasty throat infection that eventually put me in a hospital) and aside from an occasional beer (and I limit myself to one) I haven't touched a substance like this since then (that was March 2008). My PD is manageable at this point (about 2 attacks per month, with frequency and intensity continuing to decline) but I have no desire whatsoever to roll the dice.
I would also note that legal drugs exist. This is important because one of the worst things about some illegal drugs is that they are illegal; this is (1) conducive to paranoia and guilt, and (2) a factor that means you will likely have to form relationships with some pretty ugly people in order to get access to these drugs. So, if "breaking the law" is an issue for you, there are legal drugs out there. Psychoactive lotus is interesting and mildly psychedelic, and seems to be innocuous. "Mind machines" (not a drug) can have similarly interesting effects. Salvia I would advise people away from unless they know what they are getting into. Don't be fooled by its legality: it's extremely intense, and high-power extracts can produce a very unpleasant experience.
Ok, now some personal thoughts. If I had to describe psychoactive drugs in one word, it'd be: unnecessary, at least for most people. Their therapeutic potential really should be investigated by mainstream psychiatry, but I don't think most people need them in order to have powerful, beautiful spiritual experiences. There's an arrogance in certain drug-using communities about the power and singular importance of these experiences, mostly a reaction to society's (unjustly) extreme negative attitude toward their behavior. Those experiences can be interesting but are not a necessary part of a deep, spiritual life. Not at all. Really, a lot of people use psychedelic drugs and learn nothing. Timothy Leary was an outright mess (and an alcoholic) toward the end of his life. Psychedelics can certainly show what's possible, and that shouldn't be entirely discounted, but I don't think they're a good substitute for a true spiritual path that becomes a deep part of one's life, not "recreation" in 6-hour installments.
I've come to the conclusion that the effect of these drugs is to accelerate karmic processes 100- to 1000-fold, so that you mentally "age" a few months in a couple of hours. If what's ahead of you is spiritual growth, you might grow a little faster and have a very positive experience. On the other hand, if you're 3 months from a nervous breakdown that you might be able to avert (therapy) if you have sufficient time, drug use is a seriously bad idea because this acceleration makes said breakdown more likely to occur immediately and fiercely.
I think much of what gives psychedelic drug experiences their power is the duration of an open-minded state. If you have the skill and focus to hold a mindful, meditative state for one hour, much less 6, you will have a very potent experience-- probably much more meaningful than most drug trips. I don't want to give the impression that this is easy. It takes a lot of work and study to get to that level of skill. You've probably been meditating for months, if not years, before you can keep a mindful or meditative state for an hour. Once you develop this skill, however, it's very much worth it and you will have no need for (and probably not much interest in) psychedelic drugs.
One note I'll also point out is that the "failure mode" in meditation is non-experience, which is much softer a landing than the failure mode of drug use, which is an intensely negative and potentially damaging experience.
Ok, I'm done. I know that was long, but this is one of the most important decisions that young people face and most go into it without enough information, so I felt it to be worth the volume of text.
Non-experience is not the only "failure mode" possible in meditation. Most practitioners find that, as with many spiritual or psychological practices, things get more difficult before they improve. Having partial insight into the nature of reality, without the non-identification that comes with awakening, can make one's suffering a lot more apparent and "real" feeling.
For more in depth discussion of the kind of insights I'm referring to, consider the Theravada tradition's map of the progress of insight, specifically stages 5-9.
Those familiar with Christian mysticism will see the parallels with St John of the Cross's "dark night of the soul."
Personally, I believe that issues I mention above apply to psychedelic use as well, i.e., it's possible to stumble into early stages of insight via drug use. This can be even trickier than when it happens via meditation, because typically drug users are not equipped with a framework to make sense of what's happening.
Does meditation on its own ever lead to things like psychosis? Well, I've practiced at a number of meditation centers in the U.S. and Asia, and I've certainly heard plenty of stories of what happens when psychologically unstable people come to do an intense period of practice...
> Well, I've practiced at a number of meditation centers in the U.S. and Asia, and I've certainly heard plenty of stories of what happens when psychologically unstable people come to do an intense period of practice...
Having partial insight into the nature of reality, without the non-identification that comes with awakening, can make one's suffering a lot more apparent and "real" feeling.
Fair, but this is a problem with any kind of learning. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." It applies to going off to college as well.
Personally, I believe that issues I mention above apply to psychedelic use as well, i.e., it's possible to stumble into early stages of insight via drug use. This can be even trickier than when it happens via meditation, because typically drug users are not equipped with a framework to make sense of what's happening.
With drugs, you can't get out of the experience easily. High-power dissociatives can lead to a state where the person forgets being on a drug entirely, and time dilation can make a few hours of hell feel like months or years. That's the dangerous part. Drug use in an unwise setting or with the wrong people can lead to a panicky thought-loop that characterizes most bad trips. In the worst cases, it causes HPPD or even PTSD, both of which can be long-term afflictions.
If you're meditating and it becomes uncomfortable, you can stop, open your eyes, and come back to a normal state within a couple of minutes. Meditation can lead to difficult emotions (as can reading a book, taking a walk, etc.) but one isn't stuck in the experience for hours. Meditation, over time, gives you control over your state of consciousness; psychedelics hand that control over to a chemical.
Does meditation on its own ever lead to things like psychosis? Well, I've practiced at a number of meditation centers in the U.S. and Asia, and I've certainly heard plenty of stories of what happens when psychologically unstable people come to do an intense period of practice...
Disclaimer: I'm not a psychiatrist.
A few things. First, a lot of psychologically unstable people use "Eastern" approaches like meditation and yoga in lieu of proven psychiatric treatments. Bad idea. That's quite dangerous. Accomplished zen masters may have no need whatsoever to pursue mainstream psychiatric help, but that doesn't apply to the rest of us. The idea that one can overcome biological mental problems through "spiritual" means alone is dangerous, wrong, and no meditation teacher worth his salt would insinuate such a thing.
Most Buddhist adepts that I've known have said they would never advise someone to stop taking psychiatric medications, any more than they'd advise someone to stop taking heart medicine.
There's a misconception about Buddhist attitudes toward "suffering", the first noble truth being quoted as "All life is suffering." Actually, it's closer to, "There is suffering." The word for suffering, dukkha, just means painful emotion. Painful emotions are a part of human existence because we grow old and die, because we long for permanence in a dynamic world, and because we're biological organisms prone to Hamlet's "thousand natural shocks". That doesn't mean that clinical depression should go untreated. Not in the least. It means that even psychologically healthy people are prone to unpleasant emotions as long as they are in cyclic existence (which is not depressing or "dark", just obvious.)
Second, dramatic lifestyle changes are always risky for unstable people or even stable ones. That could be moving to another country, having a child, changing career, or (yes) starting a spiritual practice. It's best to ease into such things gradually if possible.
Third, going from no meditation at all to 2-week retreats is not a good idea. It's not a sign of spiritual progress. To me, it looks like a sign of mania. Again, the danger there is not from the spiritual practice, but from the frenetic, manic state of mind that produced the sudden change in spiritual orientation.
Wasn't enough to just upvote this post. This is a very thoughtful and concise (yes, really) introduction to those considering embarking on a psychedelic journey.
In my experience, contemplative and analytical people (such as the typical hacker) can truly reach the extremes of the psychedelic experience. If too anxious or unwilling to cede control, you're likely to find yourself on a slippery slope. If however, you have a rich spiritual life based on honesty (mostly with yourself), you can explore the edges of human consciousness and open doors that most will never see beyond.
Walk softly and leave the stick at home.
+1 for the idea that psychedelics accelerate and condense mental experience. Based on my 'travels' that seems correct.
I've taken psilocybin mushrooms twice. I've also read plenty of literature about psychedelics and the nature of reality. My experience is difficult to describe, because it was mostly "feeling." Language is a very crude way to express feeling, but the pithiest description I can give: it was extremely balanced.
In fact, on my first trip I listened to "Handlebars" by Flobots and the music (without the lyrics) accurately conveys what I experienced.
> So, if "breaking the law" is an issue for you, there are legal drugs out there.
Just wanted to point out that despite selling grown versions is usually illegal, in many countries it's perfectly legal to buy and sell the spores of psychedelic active mushrooms (like the Psilocybe cubensis), since they don't contain the psychoactive compounds. There are a few reputed online shops that ship them to many countries. Of course, you must be willing to grow them yourself.
EROWID's law pages[1] are useful, but do proper research before buying.
Various harm-reduction organisations like DanceSafe[1] offer testing kits that can be used to determine the primary agent and any significant adulterants[2].
There are also testing labs which process anonymous samples sent by post and determine the active agents. For example, http://www.ecstasydata.org/ Due to the complicated issues of the legality of illegal drug analysis, they can provide only ratios of active agents, rather than quantifiable values[3].
A quick look doesn't turn up any testing kits for LSD detection (or rather, the only ones that do are intended for testing people, rather than the drug itself)
if it's shrooms, you can tell whether something looks like mushrooms right? that means there's three options:
1) it'll kill you
2) it'll do nothing or make you nauseous
3) it's the real thing
nobody's gonna sell you poisonous mushrooms or they'll be in big trouble and be out of clientele really fast.
shrooms that look like proper shrooms but do nothing, I don't know if they even exist.
in both (unlikely) cases, it's not harder or more expensive to obtain mushrooms that actually do what they're supposed to do, than to get poisonous or ineffective ones, so what would be the incentive to do that?? shrooms is shrooms. they're not even that hard to tell apart, if you got a book with pictures.
it's a whole different thing if you got a blotter (LSD) with a drop of god-knows-what impregnated on it. then you need to be careful and really know who you're buying from.
People have died trying to pick psychedelic mushrooms in the wild and getting it wrong. Then again, that danger exists with regular food mushrooms in the wild as well. You just really need to know what you're doing.
From a dealer, you're very unlikely to get toadstools, for the reasons you described, but non-psychedelic mushrooms (even from the grocery store) are frequently dosed with cheap and often legal, but dangerous "research chemicals" and sold as psilocybin mushrooms. This was done with LSD back when it was cheap and readily available as well.
There are a lot of different terms that researchers in the field use: psychedelic (mind manifesting), hallucinogen, psychotomimetic (psychosis mimicking), and entheogen (god manifesting) are the main ones. Normally which one you use depends on:
- who you're writing for
- what aspect of the drug experience you're trying to emphasize
In Griffith's study he uses the term hallucinogen, most likely just to expedite IRB/FDA/DEA approval. In general though the preferred term seems to be entheogen now at least for conversational purposes, because people find it less objectionable than hallucinogen or psychedelic for obvious reasons, and it also tends to be a good conversation starter for people who haven't heard the term before. The downside is that while most atheists seem not to be bothered by the term, a few are. And it's not always appropriate, e.g. it wouldn't make sense when dosing rats with LSD or whatever.
Not all psychedelics are illegal. There is salvia and dxm; which are perfectly legal in many states but are more powerful than mushrooms (psilocybin). DXM is closer to ketamine, but it appears that all of them are capable of having psychedelic (revealing) properties.
Legality doesn't always define harm. I think THC (active psychedelic ingredient in cannabis sativa) is much, much safer to do than DXM.
Another interesting one is kratom. It's an opioid drug which is highly illegal in Thailand but perfectly legal in US (can be ordered online, which is awesome). It is also much more addictive than marijuana (being a pseudo-opiate and all) but obviously not close to being as addictive as diamorphine/oxycodone.
I'm someone dominated by anxiety and guilt and this is also my experience. Psychedelics are a fast and often cruel way to change one-self while meditation is safe, manageable and pleasant.
Hey there michaelochurch. I read through your post and noticed one verse that mentioned that many people do not distinguish between types of drug users. Perhaps you may have already come across the article, but if not, I would recommend Shedler and Block's (1990) article to you.
They also have discussions on personality antecedents to different types of relationships to drugs (abstaining, experimenting, abusing), esp. social anxieties.
If I were to categorise in broad strokes, I'd probably distinguish between
recreational (euphorics, narcotics), self-medication of psychological issues
(anxiolytics, mood stabilisers) or physical issues (stimulants, nootropics), and
self-discovery/awareness (psychedelics, entheogens).
The actual substances used in any of these roles are to some degree
interchangeable. Those who consume psychedelics for the purpose of examining
themselves from a different mind-state differ quite significantly from those who
use the same molecule to zone out and watch the internal light show. The primary factors would be intent, and responsibility.
Until I was 27 I avoided all illegal drugs on the theory that they'd be like a random edit to my core self, after which I could no longer trust who I was. Eventually I decided both that there were parts of me so stable they were unlikely to be changed, and that there were other parts for which even random change wouldn't be so bad.
Snark for snark? If you trip out, do you think you'll become open to the new (I presume?) experience of raping the corpses of decapitated skin-tumor-ridden grandpas?
I want to be better, too, and I'm continually working at becoming such. But I'm not convinced that tripping is a guaranteed way to betterness, nor how much better any accidental betterness would really be.
And not all probabilities are equal. I haven't implied there exists something which is a guarantee, I have stated that I don't think taking drugs is a guarantee to becoming better. Being more technical, taking drugs as an action for becoming better is heavily outweighed by other options in my expected utility function, both probabilistically and in amount of utility. (Of course this could change.)
