I'm not sure how best to do that, so perhaps I should just say, if any one has any questions for me regarding the story, some of the ideas in it, etc., I'll do my best to answer them. Best,
Tim
First off, I enjoyed your article. However, my biggest point of contention is with the suggestion that hallucinogenics can promote scientific discovery or fruitful hypotheses. I'll entertain that it may be possible, but I can't agree that it is probable. As a research scientist and as someone experienced, I can't imagine actually solving a difficult problem while tripping. On the contrary, based on my experience and talking with others, LSD tends to exaggerate the importance of minutia, and makes it difficult to balance the relative importance of components in a whole. In short, little things explode with importance. I can see how this might free up a new perspective, but IMHO creative thinkers do this as a matter of course anyway. You give Einstein's thinking almost as an example of the value of hallucinogenics, but to my knowledge, he broke ground without them. I'm all for investigation of hallucinogenics, and allowing people to ingest what they want, but would you agree that playing up the potential benefits of hallucinogenics might hinder a reasoned approach to them?
That said, there's no denying that plenty of people did and do have fairly profound, life-altering, solutions-garnering learning experiences simply by ingesting psychedelics (though, of course, they took substantial risks by doing this). It seems that "set" -- the personality and learning that we have, as well as our cultural background and expectations of what we can expect from the psychedelic experience -- play an entirely significant role in not just for the nature of a trip, but also for the creative process in general. In addition, the scientists or others attempting to use psychedelics for creativity seem to have to really be strongly motivated to solve the specific problems they work on prior to ingestion. The scientists in James Fadiman's study were primed to believe they would be better problem solvers through the use of psychedelics. (Or course, by today's standards of study, the proper way to do this would have a control group and variable, give both this sort of encouragement and only one the psychedelics. It'd be a great study -- but, good luck with the approval process.) Art and science are not so dissimilar as they are often made out to be. They both rely upon many of the same sources for effective creation: the ability to imagine new possibilities, to establish parameters for those possibilities and then to run that initial spark through those parameters, and to (often painstakingly) repair and tweak and redact and surge and try again -- until, if successful, a certain flow based on logic, aesthetics, the properties of electricity, etc. has been established. There are no shortages of innovators in the humanities and the hard sciences that have spoken about the positive influence of psychedelics on their respective projects. To that end, I want to quote some tech innovators in a roundabout fashion. A friend gave me a new book by Stanislav Grof, who probably guided more people on legal psychedelic trips than anybody in the world, called Healing Our Deepest Wounds. I randomly opened it up before bed last night to p.222, and found that he was speaking about a book I'd cited in my story, What the Dormouse Said, written by NYT tech reporter John Markoff. What follows is going to be me, retyping Grof who's speaking about Markoff who is quoting some incredibly influential innovators situated in what would become Silicon Valley. (This is hardly what I would do for an article, but hopefully it works here.) "Douglas Engelbart, who invented the computer mouse, also explored and experimented with psychedelic drugs. Kevin Herbert, who worked for Cisco Systems in the early days, once said: 'When I'm on LSD and hearing something that's pure rhythm, it takes me to another world and into another brain state where I've stopped thinking and started knowing.' Mark Pesce, the co-inventor of virtual reality's coding language, VRML, agreed that there is a definite relationship between chemical mind expansion and advances in computer technology: 'To a man and a woman, the people behind virtual reality were acidheads.'" So okay, none of this proves definitely that LSD -- or some other psychedelic -- led directly to virtual reality software and aesthetics. But can't we agree that something interesting seems to be going on here, and wouldn't it be great if researchers were allowed to run rigorously peer-reviewed studies to explore what that something was?
Yes, I can agree that 'something interesting' is going on, and that controlled investigation would be a worthy thing. I also strongly agree that art and science aren't so different, -at least the best of both. As for myself, I was intent on art school before I switched to physics. The best scientists I know are creative outside of their research. I'm keenly interested in breaking boundaries, and original perspectives, and I found that LSD did give me some of both. However, I've long been wary of the culture of 'drop out and tune in' that seems attached to psychedelics, particularly the 'drop out' part. Creating the computer mouse is not dropping out. IMHO squares can be some of the trippiest people around, and full engagement with them can reveal as much as any shaman. As a result, I am wary of polluting something like LSD with unnecessary baggage, especially the kind that skeptics would use to dismiss it. But, reading your response, I am left with the impression that we aren't too far apart in our thinking. Thanks for taking the time.
I love what you said about jumping from art school to physics, and about scientists whose dreams are bigger than one particular field of research. And about "squares" too. I mean, I really value my seasonal, ritualistic gatherings in the woods, during which nonordinary states of consciousness are achieved through a variety of methods. But far more of my year is spent surrounded by too many books, parsing the words of others and trying to spit out a few of my own. You don't have to drink the Kool Aid, electric or otherwise, to advocated for the intelligent use of psychedelic substances. Also, feel free to continue this thread here, or to email me at [email protected]. Really awesome swapping thoughts with you,
Tim
Same here. That's basically why I started this place: to let ideas flow as they should. I did enjoy your writing. Definitely drop a link to any more words that you happen to spit out. :) IMHO the common webiquette of only sharing 'that which you didn't create' is nonsense. We are obsessed with external validation, and it's got to start swinging the other way. Btw I'm not sure if you've read any Carl Sagan, but I recall him writing about LSD in a fairly reverent way. If I remember correctly, I think it was in Broca's Brain, which is a fantastic book. I can be reached at markkat at gmail, or here, of course. I'm wondering if any of those methods you mention ever included non-chemical ones. My late teens coincided with a great techno scene in Detroit, and we used to go to the warehouses and dance for several hours to minimalistic pumping techno music. Even when I was completely clean I could end up in a pretty altered state by 4am. -Mark
Mark: I just ordered Broca's Brain and will happily add it to the, like, 30+ titles I'm currently reading. I couldn't agree more with you that pumping beats and bods can be a portal to an altered state. (And lucky you, the Detroit scene had such a good rep for ecstatic ritual.) In a preface to a book about E and the rave scene, Douglas Rushkoff writes about the dance floor and the "loved-up" feeling and how everyone became part of something big and collective, like the cells of coral reef. While he was talking about both dance and drug, I have most certainly experienced Coral Reef Awareness with only dance. Actually, for a few months, I've been mulling over a story on a particular style of dance and its effects on body, brain and community. I can't yet speak in specifics as I haven't mentioned the idea to the person I hope to write about, who teaches and dances this ass-shaking magic.
If psychedelics work so well for people who are quite sick, needless to say, they will work for those of us who are relatively healthy, too. I do not think that, of all the healthy people in the world, only elite researchers should be granted legal access to psychedelics. It seems that to legalize all psychedelics tomorrow might be a bit of a leap for our society today. But there is international precedent for reasonable polices that can begin to at least remove the unjust and draconian penalties associated with psychedelic drug use, such as the decriminalization measures adopted 11 years ago in Portugal. (Note: decriminalization is not the same as legalization). http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decrimin... As to what happens after tomorrow: If you're interested, I could probably find links and such to some of the more visionary thinkers who posit how of psychedelics could be safely integrated into Western societies - including the recurring idea to legalize regional facilities where people are carefully screened and then permitted to experience guided psychedelic voyages.
I don't think you over-glamorized the experience but rather talked about the potential advantages of simply taking the benefits seriously. Nobody takes it seriously, everyone assumes that because it is lumped in to the category of "illegal drugs", it must have only detrimental effects. We know that this is not the case. nice work, I hope a lot of people read this.