|
|
 Posted December 21st, 2007 at 12:17AM
“We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies – all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes.”
I’ve been in love with this Aldous Huxley quote since reading The Doors of Perception last year.
On the other end of the philosophical spectrum (and that’s a false juxtaposition if I’ve ever heard one), I’m currently slogging my way through Lama Surya Das’ Awakening the Buddha Within. Every few years I’ll pick up a book dealing in Buddhism and briefly “get enlightened.” But after putting the book down and sleeping on it, I invariably realign myself along humanist lines a la Huxley.
Most don’t realize it, but Buddhism is an incredibly optimistic belief system. Everyone has the ability to realize the root causes of their suffering, and to put an end to it by removing wants, desires. Or so the spiel goes.
I just can’t bring myself to be so damn optimistic.
Of course Nirvana properly defined is attainable, but is the removal of suffering really the end goal? Most of us act and react according to desires. And if happiness is the goal, then Nirvana is the solution. But I wonder whether happiness (or the absence of its opposite) is anything other than “yet another state of mind.” Achieving Nirvana doesn’t change tangibles. Tangibles are mostly irrelevant in such a mind-state.
Should they be?
Now, I’m not going to actively pursue misery. Even though, on an abstract level, it might be much more interesting. But I’m still trying to figure out what end goal I have in mind. What would satisfy… Satisfy this deeply unsatisfying existence. I’m not looking for Nirvana. Just contentment.
This has been an incredibly unfulfilling late-night stream-of-consciousness ramble. Tune in for more, later on!
Posted December 10th, 2007 at 4:27PM
There are a few tell-tale signs for when fall arrives in New England. The nights are cooler and children start bitterly preparing for another school year. The leaves begin changing color – vivid reds, oranges, and yellows. Along with the trees’ colorful transformation come the leaf-peepers: tourists who swarm from urban areas to gawk at the brilliant hues. They make day trips to upstate NY, Vermont, and New Hampshire. They buy moose-adorned tchotchkes and pump a few dollars into the local economies in that otherwise slow time before the skiing season gets underway. And above all – they drive slowly, fixated on the trees, completely oblivious. Usually drivers in the Northeast watch for deer. But when the trees change color, it’s all about keeping an eye out for out-of-state license plates and erratic behavior.
Whether the tourist bucks make up for the inattentive driving is debatable. But the days of brilliant fall foliage in New England are numbered, courtesy of changing weather conditions predicted over the next 100 years. Talk of global climate change usually revolves around the most serious repercussions – rising sea levels and flooding, rising temperatures and droughts, more extreme weather all over. But talk of sea levels in feet and temperatures in annual averages clouds the real effects of climate change.
The new position for detractors of global climate change is a blase disregard for what the future holds. Even a small change in temperature, however, has a lasting impact – New England being a prime local example.
According to the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NCIA), the Northeast is expected to see an average temperature increase of between 5º F and 10º F by the year 2099. As is typical of such projections, the lower temperatures (winters, nights) are increasing at a faster rate than the higher temperatures (summers, days). Higher temperatures are unpleasant for humans living in the Northeast, but might spell disaster for the affected ecosystems.
The estimated change in the heat index (how hot it feels) over the next 100 years will turn upstate NY into Georgia or Virginia, currently. This is also a good way of visualizing how the ecology of New England might be affected. Two prime examples include two New England favorites: the fall foliage season, and springtime maple syrup production.
Both revolve around the trees of the Northeast. Currently, forests in the Northeast are mostly maple, beech, and birch (in Maine; coniferous spruce and fir). The sugar maples that dominant New England (particularly Vermont) are the source of both brilliant fall foliage and maple syrup. But as winters grow milder, the cold-weather maples are expected to migrate to the north, at an alarming pace. They’ll be replaced with oak, hickory, and pine – decidedly less interesting species to gawk at.
In the short term, even while the maples may last, fall foliage and maple syrup production will be affected. Increasingly rainy falls decrease the amount of time to view bright foliage. The best fall foliage is the result of crisp – but not freezing! – dry, relatively calm fall weather. For its part, syrup production requires very specific conditions: above 40º F during the daytime, below-freezing during the night. And these conditions will begin to occur less often and more sporadically as time proceeds.
When compared with flooding in Bangladesh and drought conditions in the Midwest, the fact that New England will lose fall foliage and maple syrup to Canada seems trivial. But the change will be felt by the people living in the Northeast, who produce or consume maple syrup, who leaf-peep or profit off of said peepers.
Neither is a particularly exorbitant industry. Maple syrup generates $20m in retail sales a year in Vermont (the dominant producer in the US). Leaf-peeping tourism creates a little more revenue: $83m in Maine, $337m in Vermont, and a whopping $1b in New Hampshire. But the loss is more of a way of life. Iroquois and Algonquin Indians originally used the sap, the latter creating cakes. And with the long life of the maple tree (on the scale of 400 years), some of the trees still standing were likely being tapped around the time Europeans began arriving in the area.
Today, Quebec produces the bulk of the world’s syrup. And within our lifetimes, it’s likely that we’ll need to drive clear into Canada to do our leaf-peeping and to buy our syrup. This by-product of global climate change won’t kill or leave anyone homeless, but it’s a sad fact nonetheless.
Posted November 20th, 2007 at 11:34AM
After x-mas last year, on a whim, I bought a new set of powered speakers for my laptop. We were in Best Buy, had about $100 in gift cards, and found ourselves in the speaker aisle. Our Best Buy is pretty lazy about hooking up the speakers so that you can try them out, but fortunately this section was golden, and we proceeded to crank each set up to compare / contrast. (I love cranking up audio equipment in Best Buy and leaving. The subs in the car audio section are fun but too easy. I prefer to blast the floor speakers with public or Skidmore radio. The keyboard with the loud metronome is fun too.)
Some of the speakers were really lousy. I mean atrocious. But we were impressed with this Klipsch set. So impressed, we decided to buy.
One year later, and they still sound fine. They’ve been in storage over the summer (ie. unhooked on a shelf, collecting dust), so I was worried they’d be a little crusty. You know – connections that cut out, resonations from the speaker boxes. But as luck would have it, they sound as good as when I shelved them.
Specifications, courtesy of the Klipsch website and Amazon.com
THX-certified, three-piece computer audio system
31 Hz to 20 kHz frequency response range
Maximum acoustic output: 106 dB SPL
Subwoofer: one 6.5-inch (16.51 cm) fiber-composite cone
satellites: one 3-inch fiber-composite cone each and one 0.75-inch Poly-compression driver each in a MicroTractrix horn (90° x 40° radiating area)
Speaker power (RMS): 55 watts/channel @ 1% THD, 200Hz – 1KHz (Note: all channels driven)
Subwoofer power (RMS): 50 watts @ 7% THD, 40 – 100 Hz
Max Burst Power: 200 watts @ 1% THD (Note: all channels driven)
Sound is subjective. I had a set of Sony 3-way 6 1/4″ car speakers. They were good quality but sterile. I would almost say tinny or metallic. I prefer a warmer sound. Blaupunkt car audio has always been more to my liking. Personal preference.
It’s like the difference between CDs and LPs. And the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 are firmly in the latter category. Sound is warm and rich without loosing detail. The subwoofer and satellites match nicely, getting loud without overpowering each other. When turned up to ear-bleeding territory, highs don’t overwhelm the mids and lows – which is a good thing. I want ear-bleeding, not headache-inducing.
As a part-time bass-head, I could use more bass sometimes. When turned up, these Klipschs start to get farty and loose definition. At moderate levels the sub can be a tad too boomy. But in this category and price point, that’s always going to be an issue.
My Klipschs have the sub currently dialed at about 11 o’clock and I have iTunes’ “Sound Enhancer” turned on, which creates a fuller bodied sound without messing around with the equalizer. (I find myself fiddling with equalizers after every song or album. The Sound Enhancer seems to get the job done.) And, as I started out saying, I’ve been pleased with the durability of the set. Going on a year with no problems. My previous 2.1 set – a highly reviewed Yamaha model – started cutting out and loosing clarity about a year in.
For computer and light music use – or to replace your TV’s wretched built-in speakers – a 2.1 set like this works fine. 4 or 5.1 is just adding unnecessary cost and bulk unless you’re spending big $$$ on a quality home theater.
For about $100 (about what I paid a year ago, retail is still $149) I’d say the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 are a deal. They’ll be enough to annoy your neighbors next door.
Posted August 16th, 2007 at 9:41PM
In a CBS News / New York Times poll earlier this year, 90% of respondents agreed that the United States healthcare system needed either “fundamental changes†or a “complete overhaul.†Most were satisfied with their own care, but the majority (81%) said they were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the cost of care. And a full two-thirds agreed that the government has a “responsibility to provide healthcare for all.â€
And which party, according to the March 1st poll, is seen as most capable of fixing the system? In a four to one margin – the Democrats. With the population calling for a solution that offends small government sensibilities, the Democrats have the chance, for a change, to be on the winning side of a wedge issue. (Consider the latest war in Iraq a squandered opportunity.)
In most cases, wedge issues are political and not policy oriented. They’re about creating conflict and not bettering the state of things. Is it possible for the Democrats to use an issue that actually needs resolution? They’ll need to walk a fine line.
As per the primary season, to date, the issue has produced mostly infighting among the Democratic contenders. As a result of her time as head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform ,Hillary Clinton is viewed as most capable. The failed task force was the result of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, which focused on reforming healthcare. John Edwards has been pushing a detailed plan, while Barack Obama has been faulted for “vagueness.†Still, regardless of the candidate, Democrats have always been seen as more capable in dealing with healthcare woes. And this view has only been reinforced in recent years by Bush’s complete impotence on the matter.
The fact that healthcare is shaping up to be the domestic hot-button issue for the 2008 election cycle comes as a welcomed relief after years of debate over manufactured crises like gay marriage or stem cell research. Healthcare is a daily concern for millions of Americans. The costs for both insurer and insured are skyrocketing, while the number of uninsured continues to climb (47 million in 2006). The crisis has reached a sort of critical mass, with no one particularly happy with the status quo. The Democrats have the ability to push the issue during the election, and then – more importantly – to act when they’re elected. The calls to decrease costs and increase coverage are resolvable. But just because this opportunity has fallen into the collective lap of the Democratic Party doesn’t mean it’ll be capitalized upon.
Any successful campaign for reform will need to point out the inefficiencies of our current healthcare system that make it the most costly per capita in the world. Clinton’s attempts at reform in the early ‘90s were portrayed as bureaucratic and restrictive – not to mention necessitating the politically suicidal “tax increase.†The eventual Democratic nominee in 2008 needs to avoid such banal characterizations.
Reform will likely necessitate increased government spending, but this will be offset by the fact that individual and business costs associated with healthcare will decrease. Premiums for a typical family have nearly doubled in the past five years, and the situation is similar for businesses. The current healthcare system impedes growth by increasing administrative costs and discouraging small businesses, entrepreneurs, and others who might choose to work at home or change jobs. Americans spend more than double per capita what other industrialized nations spend on healthcare, but we’re consistently worse in leading indicators like life expectancy or infant mortality rates. Illustrating these sorts of inefficiencies and inadequacies is crucial in currying wider support, both for reform and for the Democratic nominee.
But all reform is not equal, and the biggest challenge now might very well be political expediency trumping sound policy. At a town hall meeting in Iowa devoted to healthcare, Hillary Clinton excused her failure to provide specifics, saying that she was waiting to hear from voters on what sort of plan they would favor. A broad swath of support for healthcare reform is indeed necessary, but crafting a plan that’s palatable to everyone (including those currently profiteering) is a recipe for disaster. Stopgap measures and half-hearted attempts will only fail, vindicating naysayers who say reform is unnecessary or unfeasible. So it becomes not an issue of whether healthcare is on the table, but rather a genuine policy debate. Every Democratic candidate will need a plan that is not only practical, but effectual. And then, we need to hold them to their word once they assume the presidency.
Posted August 16th, 2007 at 9:37PM
America’s so-called “war on drugs†is ostensibly focused on eliminating nonessential, unprescribed drug use. The reason given is the purported harm that follows. And this rationale has become accepted (to varying degrees) by most of the population. It’s a sort of benevolent prohibition; it’s the government’s way of saving us from ourselves. People accept this because of several historical realities – including a century or more of said institutionalized prohibition, a puritan religious ethos, and the uninterrupted flow of junk science telling us the dangers of all unprescribed drug use.
But the criminalization of drug use has less to do with the health of the population and more with enforcing a uniformity of consciousness. This aversion to nonstandard or altered states of consciousness is the result of a society molded out of monotheistic religious practices – practices which necessarily promote a standardized, monopolized way of thinking about life, god, and the meaning of it all. Narrow definitions of purity, clarity, and sanity rule the day. Altered states and the thought processes produced are dangerous to the status quo – particularly in regard to our religious beliefs and the moral underpinnings of our society (the rarely questioned “realities†we find ourselves living in).
The history of drug legislation in the U.S. is a history of creating Others, often along racial lines. The first significant step towards criminalization came in the late-19th century, on the west coast, in the form of restrictions on opium use. Chinese-American immigrants, fresh from finishing the nation’s major railroads, were demonized in the public sphere for their use of opium. San Francisco banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. Health concerns were not paramount; it was the moral character of white women who might be drawn in and intoxicated by the drug and associated “orientals.†(The smoking of opium in San Francisco was allowed among Chinese immigrants, but the presence of a white man would result in the arrest of all parties, according to commissioner Jesse B. Cook who served the San Francisco Police Department from the late 1880s to the 1930s).
Corroborating this racialized interpretation is the significant fact that only the smoking of opium was targeted. The drug continued to be a regular feature in panaceas; the unregulated quasi-medicinal cures created and quaffed in abundance during this period.
A Christian / Abrahamic moral argument against unprescribed drug use might go along the lines that an altered states of consciousness is in direct opposition to what we ought to strive for: purity, clarity, closeness to god. And secular individuals might very well agree with this (substituting an ultimate authority or goal in life for “godâ€). But although western society is modeled around monotheistic religion, moral claims alone can’t form the basis for a given law in a pluralistic, democratic society (they’re inherently undemocratic and monistic). Prohibition of nonessential drug use today can only be understood as a way of eliminating (or minimizing) alternative ways of thinking.
Tsenay Serequeberhan, author and assistant professor at Hampshire College, writes that “that which is beyond question is the solid ground on which one stands.†To question this solid ground is to question the “realities†of the day. These realities include the nature of human interaction, the purpose of our lives and how we live them, and the systems (economic, political, social) we find ourselves involved in. In short, the sort of fundamental questions usually reserved for organized religion. Altered states allow us to disconnect from the prescribed standards of the world – to remove the barriers that keep us from discovering deeper truths. Instead of faith, we’re able to discover these truths ourselves.
The 20th century brought new ills and new scapegoats to the fore. Opium was out; cocaine became attributed to blacks and to increasing their (well-known at the time) insatiable appetite for white women. Marijuana was the domain of Mexicans and jazz (read: black) musicians. The Harrison Act of 1914 required licenses to sell opiates and cocaine. Licenses quickly became difficult to obtain, which restricted legal purchase and in time created a de facto black market for opiates and cocaine.
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and successive legislation, which increased the price and hassle of buying said drug legally, had the same effect as the earlier Harrison Act. Again, as with opium, the health consequences of the drug were not the main impetus for the legislation, at least insofar as the (perceived) primary users were concerned. The act was economic in nature – these drugs (and their sales) had escaped taxation till this point. But the moral decay and health of the white population also entered into it, as films like Reefer Madness so humorously portray. (Users going insane and becoming degenerate with just a wiff.) Health concerns were raised (testimony to Congress in 1937 told of marijuana use resulting in “insanity, criminality and deathâ€), but seemed self-serving. They were used to curry support – and not a primary reason for prohibition itself.
And what of alcohol prohibition, the spectacular failure that’s broadly acknowledged as such? The 19th amendment made alcohol illicit in 1920; the 21st amendment repealed the 19th in 1933. Alcohol then and now enjoys acceptance from a broad spread of the population – creating a targeted population is difficult. And while its negative health effects match or better that of many illicit substances, its intoxicating effects are slight and inconsequential from a more metaphysical standpoint. Few have true moments of clarity while under the influence of alcohol, and fewer still have breakthroughs that stand on their own merit the morning after.
Fast forward to the ‘70s and the golden age of drug prohibition. U.S. President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs†and pushed through the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Agency was created, giving rise to an entire establishment bent on enforcing the unenforceable.
But there was another movement afoot, the one that led to the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) – that of the use and experimentation of drugs. Often recreational, but at other times not. The targeted drug users of the ‘60s and ‘70s were not racial Others but sociopolitical ones. There was a full-scale counter-culture underway, consisting in large part of upper-class whites. And the innovators of the subset drug scene were professors and students from prestigious universities, exploring chemicals and plants like LSD, MDMA, peyote, and psilocybin mushrooms (to name a few). They were seeking a “positive hangover.†The beat poets of the preceding decades were the spiritual (if not direct) forefathers of this research and experimentation. But unlike the beats, this new wave of (self-identified) freaks threatened the status quo, protesting war and living unconventionally in communes or on the road.
As the counter-culture exhausted itself (or incorporated itself into popular culture?) a new scene unfolded in the U.S. “Law and order†candidates were elected to government and cocaine came into vogue, both in the street and on Wall Street. The use of cocaine increased five fold between 1972 and 1988. Once again, America’s drug use underwent a change unaffected by prohibition – a change not of scale or quantity, but of product.
Despite (or as a result of) the failure of prohibition, it continued and was expanded throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, till the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 1988, whose top position enjoyed the title of Drug Czar. (A position Bill Clinton subsequently raised to cabinet-level status in 1993.)
The ‘90s were another transformative time, perhaps symbolized best by exploding trailer-homes (the result of amateur chemists and methamphetamine production). Also significant was the rise of the internet and the information it made readily available. Abuse of over the counter and prescribed medications became increasingly popular, and anyone with access to a computer could suddenly find a wealth of information on home-brewing any number of intoxicants.
Today we find ourselves in much the same position. New designer drugs and research chemicals (and prescription drugs) are discovered, with a flurry of activity and usage ensuring – until the substance is scheduled by the DEA. Oftentimes, media attention explodes due to an overdose: the death of a young, promising white youth stirring public outrage.
The cost of this never-ending cycle is immense. Twelve billion dollars were spent in 2005 on waging “the war,†and an additional $65 billion was spent shuttling citizens through the legal system, and on subsequent incarceration. This “war†incarcerates more than one million U.S. citizens annually, a full quarter of that for possession of marijuana alone. A drug which, according to any number of studies, a quarter to a third of U.S. citizens use on a semi-regular basis.
The result is a ballooning of the prison-industrial complex and its population. Among countries from which reliable statistics can be had, the U.S. has the largest percentage of its population behind bars. The total cost of this failed policy, from government expenditures to the effects of jail time on citizens, is incalculable.
If the government had a real stake in creating healthy citizens, its efforts could certainly be better spent elsewhere (universal healthcare and a mandatory national exercise program to start?). And the claim that recreational drug use results in degenerate, unproductive (not to mention criminal) users flies in the face of all evidence – one needs only to point to nations with less severe drug policies (western Europe for instance) and their drug use and drug-related crime. Furthermore, if the goal truly was reduced crime or increased productivity, then U.S. drug law would not hinder those convicted by creating permanent criminal records or restricting college financial aid.
The most logical (and honest) argument in favor of prohibition is one rarely heard today. It’s the argument used more than a hundred years ago against opium-smoking Chinese immigrants. It is that unprescribed drug use and the altered states of consciousness produced are immoral and dangerous to the status quo.
Commonly held western notions of morality are almost universally rooted in the Abrahamic (read: monotheistic) religions. And the general puritanical nature of these religions is in stark contrast to the beliefs held before them. Unsurprisingly then, we have examples of mind-altering substances being used throughout the world pre-monotheism. Their use was primarily religious and introspective in nature. In the Americas alone, there has been historical use of various cacti, psilocybin mushrooms, morning glory seeds, Salvia divinorum, ayahuasca blends, and various typtamine-containing snuffs – to name a few.
“Entheogen†is a term describing a substance taken to produce an altered state of consciousness; that consciousness being sought for religious or metaphysical purposes. Less recreational, more enlightenment – in the sense of true self-awareness and understanding. This pursuit was the principle use before monotheism, and enjoyed a surge in popularity during the ‘60s and ‘70s. And this prospect of an enlightened population is the real threat of unprescribed drug use.
The danger to traditional monotheistic religion is obvious. Enlightenment through introspection avoids subjugation to a god. The threat to other established elite comes from the nature of true enlightenment.
One would have a difficult time disputing the idea that the American (ergo global) economy today is rooted in overproduction and, as a result, conspicuous consumption. Hedonism is distinct in that it’s explicitly rejected but implicitly practiced by the great majority of Americans. But a person can be cognizant of this while at the same time a willing participant. Rational self-interest can keep the best of us from acting on what we believe in.
Should that rational self-interest be stripped away (however momentarily) and our way of thinking – and therefor, our actions – can change decidedly. The altered state of an entheogen may be transient, but the effects need not be. Properly used, a “positive hangover†can be had, remaining with the user long after the physical effects have worn off. A new outlook on life, discovered in a state of mind with no baggage, commitments, or self-interest obstructing our view. And in an imperfect world, an enlightened populace risks challenging the dominant structures.
None of this is to say that all mind-altering substances hold such value. Indeed, the effects of a given drug vary enough from individual to individual (and experience to experience) to rule out identifying substances that carry such potential. This potential for self-realization comes not from the chemical, but from the state of mind it produces. Similar altered states can be created by sensory deprivation, or meditation, or sublime music. Arguably, none of these other routes are as accessible as the entheogen.
Nonessential drug use carries with it many problems, including health concerns and dependency. But the intelligent use of drugs can also be an impetus for exploration, for creativity and introspection. The chief danger, then, is that the mind-altering substance allows us to think and perceive the world differently. And to reinterpret the world is to change it.
Posted March 8th, 2007 at 12:24PM
This is my part of a larger collaborative project for my senior seminar writing class. I’ll link up the full project when it goes live.
Don’t bother remembering facts and figures, historical events and persons. The pedagogical norm of our school systems – the regurgitation of facts in multiple-choice or short answer form – is a disservice to the next generation. Today the collective memory of a thousand or ten thousand can be safely stored in a pocket, or held in the palm of a hand. A $50 flash drive contains more knowledge than Einstein could have ever possibly dreamt of. Individualism has been America’s chief religion and ideology, but today we find ourselves moving closer and closer to a collective consciousness via technology and the internet. Today, it is not what you know that is important, but how well you can google.
Reality today is much stranger than fiction.
This technological collective consciousness is the result of technology which brings all together, to share and learn and feed off of one another in a symbiotic (albeit perhaps cold, impersonal) relationship. Today’s wiki is an exact example of this, but all of the internet can be included.
The internet was born out of a need to communicate better so that we could war better. This technology grew exponentially throughout the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, in both scale and accessibility (and use and potential). From black and green DOS terminals to colorful point-and-click GUIs. From a token few researchers at certain technical institutions and the Pentagon to soccer-moms and their five-year-olds everywhere.
It has been said that Wisdom is the ability to understand others; it is the understanding of yourself that is Enlightenment.
Intelligence has, in the past, been measured by how much information one can retain. The pursuit of information, of knowledge. And then, following this, what one does with it – the pursuit of understanding. With the internet and its (our) collective consciousness, infinite knowledge (for the purposes of an individual) is readily available and at our fingertips. It is unnecessary to remember because we can easily google for the fact or information in question. Long-term memory is superfluous, and should things continue as they are, evolution will reflect this.
Today, the pursuit of wisdom or enlightenment can (ought to) take center stage. Intelligence today can be measured in understanding. The ability to think critically trumps the ability to be a good Jeopardy contestant. Emphasis shifts.
Toward this end, society evolves: constantly, slowly. Today’s children navigate the collective consciousness with ease. The elderly, less so. As humanity ambles along, it becomes adjusted to the new realities. The people change first; structures (libraries, the schooling system, the media) follow. Whether humanity begets the reality or vice-versa is irrelevant (unanswerable). Change happens; it is.
If you submit to us now, we will train you to be free tomorrow.
Those without the means of logging on (technological, economic and even geographical barriers still exist) are left behind and outside. Outside, one has two options: to continue as before, spending time and grey matter harvesting knowledge through traditional (deteriorating) channels; or to amalgamate with the collective consciousness. The pursuit of knowledge is inefficient; amalgamation is self-destructive (the loss of individualism). But at least a choice is presented. For those born into the machine, no true choice is allowed. All of the structures we surround ourselves with today are hegemonic; they disallow deviance or alternatives.
Some attempt to control the madness, but there is no method here. Censorship or regulation has failed, or will fail. This pursuit is as futile as controlling an individual’s thoughts or dreams. The consciousness is anarchistic.
The creation of a collective consciousness is also inevitable. It is the product of millennia of technological progress, culminating in a sort of “final solution.†Humanity’s thirst for knowledge has given rise to a system that allows everyone to know everything. And this is as close to nirvana as humanity can hope to achieve.
Posted January 8th, 2007 at 4:29PM
 that which is beyond question is the solid ground on which one stands.â€
–– Tesnay Serequeberhan
“Our generation is the first, ever, to have made the search for self-awareness a crime, if it is done with the use of plants or chemical compounds as the means of opening the psychic doors.â€
–– Alexander Shulgin1
The use and acceptance of entheogens was widespread until the (recent) advent of monotheistic religions – principally the Abrahamic faiths – which have (as a general rule of thumb) kept puritanical beliefs in regards to “intoxicants.†Historically, however, we have peyote cactus (containing mescaline), psilocybin mushrooms, morning glory seeds (containing lysergic acid amide, a naturally occurring relative of LSD) and Salvia divinorum – in North America alone, involving various native American societies (most notably the Aztecs). South America saw ayahuasca blends (DMT-containing plants combined with natural MAO inhibitors, which allow the DMT to become active orally), different types of mescaline-containing cacti (San Pedro and Peruvian Torch for instance), and various typtamine-containing snuffs.
In Asia: the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) mushroom. “Soma,†although its actual ingredients still under debate, was an inebriant and entheogen from early Indo-European societies. The earliest proof of cannabis’ existence and use (from the last I’ve heard) also comes from this part of the world, around northern India. Hashish was a tool of Sufis in the Middle East, and the use of small amounts of Syrian Rue (MAO inhibitor) in ritual today is likely a holdover of its use in much greater quantities historically.
Europe was of course no exception. The witches burned at the stake in Christian Europe used various plants and herbs, including deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna) and mandrake (Mandragora officinarum).
It’s easy to rattle off dozens of such examples. Yet I won’t go into much detail of these historical cases. First, because my knowledge is limited to the most common instances. And secondly, because this use is not totally relevant for what I’d like to talk about within this paper. The historical ceremonial use of entheogens revolved around indigenous religious practices, while the contemporary use of such substances in the western world is – when not recreational – often for singularly personal exploration. Many consider it “spiritual,†but few do it within the context of a larger religious group or setting. Still, this might be a false distinction of mine.
The importance of including this is to ground the current discussion. Mind-altering substances have long been used by man for positive, non-recreational purposes, from the very first cave paintings of “mushroom men.†It’s not a recent phenomenon.
***
“Only a fool believes that he is different from the birds in the sky.â€
–– The Flaming Lips, Vein of Stars
I feel as if this line can only be fully appreciated after having a mind-melting psychedelic experience (particularly with psilocybin, given its general disposition). But I digress.
***
For the purposes of this paper, references to entheogens from this point on will primarily refer to psilocybin mushrooms, mescaline, and DMT, collectively. All three are powerful, naturally occurring hallucinogens, which – while unequivocally distinct from each other – allow for the same sort of introspection important here.
What do these entheogens allow us to do? They allow us to question basic assumptions that we’re unable (or unwilling) to question while operating as rational, self-interested individuals. How they accomplish this might be readily apparent but is still worth an explanation. Before this, however, we must look at why things are ever “beyond question†in the first place.
The single largest reason that anything might be beyond question, why we might be unwilling to question it, is that by proving otherwise, we endanger ourselves. Operating as rational, self-interested individuals, it’s not prudent to explore topics that ruin us. This is in a similar vein to what has been discussed in class – the pursuit of knowledge jeopardizes love. The former is simply more grounded and less abstract, left unspecified.
A simplistic example could be the stockbroker who convinces others to buy portfolios which prove ruinous down the road (but still benefit the broker greatly). The broker could come to the realization that what he does is wrong. But this acknowledgment would mean changing his ways, perhaps to something less lucrative. It would also acknowledge a history of wrongdoing. So he deludes himself.
A better example could be the sheriff who supports racial profiling in his city because the minority groups there are statistically shown to commit crime more often. And this will probably be his conscious basis. And perhaps it’s truly his reason. But if not? Discovering racist tendencies within yourself is not a discovery that many look forward to – or attempt to discover in the first place.
Are there other fundamental reasons for an inability to question something? Yes, but they’re less interesting to me and deal less with an internal struggle and more with external stimuli – perhaps ignorance of the question (and/or the absence of something that triggers it).
The unquestionable ground can also be the result of the reality around us. If it’s common knowledge that the Earth is flat (or that Arabs are prone to violence), then we’re believers, without needing any tangible proof or understanding of the concept. What reason is there to question the obvious? We arrive at such a conclusion by virtue of our society’s acceptance of it.
The use of an entheogen in paring away life’s assumptions is multi-fold. First, it (at proper dosage) dissolves the user’s superego. The rational, self-interested individual, shaped by years of social conditioning, looses his training. “Lose†is inappropriate – he will be able to recall, on an intellectual level, everything he has learned. But the importance, the gravity of things, which in an ordinary state of consciousness are obvious, isn’t taken for granted anymore.
At higher levels, the ego is similarly forgotten. The user’s personal identity becomes meaningless in encountering a higher level of consciousness. This is where my lack of understanding of psychoanalysis hampers me. There’s a distinction here, between losing the import of the social norms we’re steeped in, and losing the import of who we are and what makes us individuals. It’s a distinction between who we are and how we act (or why). Regardless, both things are rendered unimportant (optimally) in the entheogenic experience. And the usefulness of this state of mind can be great. If self-interest prevents us from greater understanding of ourselves and the world around us, then removing that self-interest allows us to continue said searching.
Perhaps because of this change in perspective, or perhaps as a separate consequence of the entheogen, the user can also become more interested in identifying and questioning such matters. The search for truth, for insights, for anything and everything becomes important. More important than watching a television program, worrying about an upcoming exam, or any of the things that we often preoccupy ourselves with.
There is a huge caveat that I have neglected to mention up to this point. And it is that the user must be interested in challenging assumptions, in seeking truth and insights. This interest is not solely linked to the use of any given entheogen. To once more tie it into Freud and psychoanalysis that I don’t fully understand or appreciate, there is still the id to be reckoned with.
Any experience with a psychedelic is impacted by the user’s attitude and activities in the days leading up to the experience. Reading philosophy will usually result in thought processes along those same lines. Likewise, little cranial activity at all leading up to the use of an entheogen will often result in a squandered, uneventful experience spent watching the “visualizer†screen of iTunes or Windows Media Player. The experience can also be largely directed by the user and where they want to go. This is why pacifier-sucking club-goers aren’t turning into sage metaphysicians by the hordes.
When the interested, invested user of an entheogen comes back to baseline, most of the philosophizing of the previous few hours will seem nonsensical and useless in an ordinary state of consciousness. (“Why†is an unknown to me at this point in time. Perhaps it’s useless, or perhaps the user hadn’t dug deeply enough.) Occasionally, a quantifiable breakthrough will happen, one of life’s great (or little) mysteries solved for that individual. But even if there are no “ah ha!†moments after the fact, the existence of subliminal change is likely. (One wonders if it’s ever possible to come out completely unscathed.)
Of course, entheogens are not the “one true path to enlightenment.†There are plenty of paths to that (each being equally long and arduous I imagine). Entheogens are a research tool that few use. They’re also a tool that’s largely condemned by popular society and its government. But if the question is “what can I not afford to question,†a good place to start is by stripping yourself of excuses to avoid answering.
***
Why is the positive use of mind-altering substances relegated to the fringe – seen as a holdover of the 60s? Society today and its interactions with mind-altering chemicals is complex and deserving of its own paper. But a few things seem readily apparent. The first would be that the main, initial opposition came from organized religion. Whether it was hanging “witches†or indoctrination through D.A.R.E. programs, the same backing applies. But this isn’t to say that all opposition stems from religion. America’s drug laws, for their part, seem to have found much of their support by advancing racism and creating Others out of minority groups.
Anti-opium legislation of the late 19th century portrayed asians (finished building railroads by this point) as slack-jawed opium addicts. Marijuana prohibition rose after the failure of alcohol prohibition, and was successfully cast as a scourge (along with jazz music) coming from the black community. The eventual, comprehensive “narcotics†legislation of the 70s doesn’t immediately have such an obvious connection – perhaps because, for a change of pace, much of the drug use disturbing those in power came from upper-class whites. Experimentation by professors and students at the top schools of the nation was the source of interest and use of rather newly manufactured chemicals like LSD, as well as the rediscovery of things like mescaline and DMT.
In all of these cases, and others, like cocaine in the 80s, the legislation began once the majority population began to feel the effects. At the end, there was real concern for the drugs and their effects. But it’s humorous to think that today’s drug policies are aimed at protecting the health of our society – the true reason seems to be a puritan ethos stemming from Christianity.
|
Tags: 
