[plurinshael]

People with psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul. Do not try to strip that away.

The commodification of medicine troubles me--I prefer the perspective of sacred medicine. It goes roughly definitionally / tautologically: if something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition. The idea of medicine as a mechanism has really lost something intimate and special, compared to the idea of medicine as divine.

[azernik]

> if something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you.

Let me explain in two different ways why this is wrong.

First, because we are after all a site full of programmers, let me put this in terms of prepositional logic: A => B is different from B => A. If I tell you "all doctors are humans" (let's assume this is true, for the sake of the example), accepting that proposition does not then imply "all humans are doctors".

Second, from a philosophical/rhetorical perspective: you are using two different definitions of "sacred" and acting like they're the same. There's the one by which, if something heals you it is sacred (a consequential reading, where "sacredness" has to do with the value of healing). Then there's the one where if something is sacred it heals you (a deontological/aesthetic reading, where "sacredness" is an attribute inherent to an act regardless of its consequences). Acting like the two are the same leads you into a trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.

[plurinshael]

I appreciate the effort you've put in to "refute" me, but I do not think that you've actually put much thought into it.

I'm aware of how logic works, I have a degree in mathematics. I did not intend to use A=>B as a reason that B=>A; I was using both as self-evidential statements.

I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes. In this way of thinking, there is no medicine that is not sacred. This operates more or less as an axiom, though they would probably not describe it that way. Because axiom implies an inflexibility and rigidity not intended... I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.

If you're already formulating your rebuttal, please arrest the thought because I haven't really made any point yet. I'm just laying out the groundwork, describing how other cultures think about life.

I guess the one question I would ask you relates to your final statement.

>trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.

I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred? If you refuse to believe in those things, or refuse to conceptually work with things you've never personally experienced, that is your choice. But I think you should identify that bias as driving your argumentation, and maybe take a step back if you have not had an experience in this realm. You wouldn't try to describe Italy if you'd never set foot in Italy, would you?

[azernik]

> I was using both as self-evidential statements.

They are not.

> I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes.

This is the whitest sentence I have ever read on this website. And it's a very white website.

> I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.

Okay. And what are those rules, guidelines, and best practices for magic mushrooms? Because let me tell you, most people's experience of grabbing a shroom or two and eating them does not come with the kinds of structure you see in, say, ayahuasca practices.

You're acting like the preliminary scientific results - of improvement in mental health - come from following a centuries-long native tradition. They don't. They come from the haphazard practices of white California hippies over the last 80 years or so.

> I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred?

I'm not trying to refute the existence of the spiritual. I'm trying to refute your very specific loading in this thread of a wide variety of psilocybin practices, mostly arrived at for convenience in the last several decades, with sacredness and with traditional imprimatur.

[plurinshael]

Hey have a nice day

[sysbin]

> People with psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul. Do not try to strip that away.

No opinion on the article or yours but where are you getting this opinion? Why or how, do psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys.

Not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it. There is noting scientific about what you're suggesting that I'm aware about as well.

[plurinshael]

Note what I did and didn't say. I did NOT say: "People with psychiatric disorders will be cured by spiritual experiences."

Having a mental disorder is a pretty miserable existence, in several different ways. Anything that could reasonably be described as a spiritual experience will bring you a sense of wonder, fun, release, enlightenment, excitement, new perspective, added insight about your life, and a sense of connection to others or the Earth or the cosmos. I have difficulty believing that those things will not help people with psychiatric disorders. Everyone needs those things and I cannot take seriously any assertions to the contrary.

I also have difficulty accepting your statement that "not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it." Some people don't believe in fun? Some people don't believe in healing, in excitement? I have met some of those people but I do not think we should consider that level of disconnection with life as anything but a terrible tragedy. And that we should try to find ways to connect with those people, bring a little fun and joy into those people's lives if we feel able and willing to do so.

It's kind of like, not all people believe in eating food, and those people are in serious danger and need our help.

[bawolff]

Many (most?) people taking this substance report having some sort of mystical/spiritual experience. I doubt they are actually convening with the divine, but whether/how/why the substance causes that affect in people is certainly a part of "science".

I also don't think the spiritual journey aspect should be dismissed so lightly. Its being investigated to help depression. Perhaps inducing a "spiritual" state in people is part of the cause of action of the drug.

[plurinshael]

>I doubt they are actually convening with the divine.

I appreciated your comment overall but this statement stood out to me. May I ask what guided this choice of words? Why would you have an opinion on it one way or the other?

[bawolff]

Its based on my personal beliefs. I don't have much to back it up one way or another (maybe occam's razor at most). Metaphysical claims usually come down to i believe what i believe because i believe it, and i am no exception.

The main reason i included it was because psybin's comment which i was responding to was very dismissive of "spirituality", and i think there is still valid things to talk about related to spiritual "journeys" regardless of if you think there is some metaphysical force you are connecting to, or if you believe its simply a drug-induced altered state.

[sysbin]

Please can you provide sources?

[bawolff]

A source that people believe that psilocybin helps them achieve a mystical state? Or a source about something else?

Isn't the defining feature of a mystical experience that the participant feels that they had one (its a concept about subjective internal states, not an objective thing to measure beyond i guess self-reported surveys). Given that its going to be self reported anyways, i think the general acedotes about psilocybin inducing spirtual "states" is pretty compelling.

Anyways, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772431/ is a study on the effect of psilocybin induced mystical experiences.

[sysbin]

I'm interested in a scientific study of how it was somehow linked to spiritual. I'm aware of drugs in general changing mental states of people that suffer from different illnesses. I've tried shrooms before and the high was similar to cannabis for me. I'm not a spiritual person at all and maybe that is why I didn't really care for it. I can imagine psilocybin helping a person in general from the effects but I just don't understand why someone would link it to spiritual unless they were deluded.

[banads]

Johns Hopkins research has shown a single dose having clinically significant improvement in depression for at least 6 months in 80% of participants; such results are unprecedented in psychiatry:

https://youtu.be/81-v8ePXPd4

See also, Marsh Chapel Experiment:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment

[techbio]

"Spiritual awakening" is a keystone of 12-Step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, whether effective or not, it is the de facto official treatment for substance use disorders.

"Religious delusions" are a frequent component of schizophrenia.

Clearly more research is needed in this space if we are ever to reason about it in a scientific context.

[ta1771]

Drug in question used to be a treatment for alcoholism before the drug war began.

Quick Qwant search should turn up loads.

[EamonnMR]

I wonder if this type of thinking is a side effect of dmt et al. Perhaps they aren't as safe as is believed.

[mistermann]

> I wonder if this type of thinking is a side effect of dmt et al.

Based on extensive reading in the community, I would say overwhelmingly yes. To what degree this derives directly from the substance, versus an "unlocking" of thinking modalities that already exist but are dormant (or not normally consciously perrceivable) is interesting and worth study, but disciplined, logical thinking is not something you'll find much of in the scene. And that's ok, but only to a degree.

> Perhaps they aren't as safe as is believed.

What most anyone believes about safety or any other attributes seems almost certainly to be quite far off the mark.

[plurinshael]

My educational background is in mathematics and physics. I think you'll find I can give disciplined, logical thinking a run for your money. Logic after all is only an adherence to predetermined axioms in a consistent fashion, not an algorithm for which axioms you should and shouldn't adopt to begin with.

Just like science cannot claim to hold an opinion on a phenomenon it has not studied, logic should have no opinion on the great sea of life that happens outside formal systems. Should I spend my time by the river or walking among the trees? There's no strictly logical general answer. You can say, "It's thunderstorming, you shouldn't be outside at all," but that presupposes that I care about surviving. If I do not share that axiom ie I want to live as the wild, and brave the storm with my body in danger, that's not strictly speaking illogical. It's just not your logic. The logic does not share the same axioms but may be perfectly consistent unto itself.

[mistermann]

> Logic after all is only an adherence to predetermined axioms in a consistent fashion, not an algorithm for which axioms you should and shouldn't adopt to begin with.

I couldn't agree more, particularly the highlighted part. When one gets into these realms, logic is not only not very useful, it is often extremely harmful, because it too will provide answers that are (to my way of thinking anyways), objectively incorrect. To a person using strictly logic (or so they think, unaware of their hidden axioms, or even what an axiom is), their beliefs appear to be facts, and perfectly logical ones at that. Examples are things like the "right" political system, the "right" economic system, the "right" way to raise a child, the "right" way to distribute income, and so on.

And it's hard to blame people if you spend some time seriously thinking about it - almost from the day a child is born, it is subjected to massive amounts of psychological influence (training their mental model): beliefs forced upon them by their parents, their culture, their religion, their teachers, their friends, etc. As they grow older, eventually they enter the adult world where there are also career pressures, relationship pressures, consumption of massive amounts of propaganda ("facts" to non-crazy people) via multiple different (but coordinated) channels, typically repeating and reinforcing all these prior beliefs, driving the "hooks" deeper and deeper into their mind. It's no wonder the world seems like a madhouse right now, and how it is so difficult to get someone to break through the walls that have been built around their mind. It can be done, but logic is not the tool for the job. As the saying goes, you can't change someone's beliefs using logic, if logic was not used to form those beliefs.

As far as axioms (and likely even logic) go, I bet you and I are quite highly aligned. And where we're not, I doubt we'd have much trouble seeing each other's point of view. But that's just my intuition!

How do misunderstandings such as this one arise? In this case, my guess would be:

- in this community, I speak almost exclusively using logic, and "extremist" logic at that (I believe there is a time and place for it) - assuming this is my only mode is perfectly natural (logical).

- my above comments regarding "I wonder if this type of thinking[1] is a side effect of dmt et al" could very easily be misinterpreted negatively. And I guess, parts of them are. In my experience in various plant medicine and spiritualist communities, there seems to be an excess of conformist, woo woo, excessively optimistic thinking (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). When a rationalist is exposed to this the first time, it can be quite a shock. But as I spent more time and got to know several people closely, you start to find out what the real deal is (again, in my experiences). Much of it can be posing, conformity, hypocritical, and various other negative behaviors, which are completely counter to anything I've ever heard from the true gurus, who advise having an open and free mind, etc. So this would be one negative opinion I hold on the community as it practices, as opposed to what the "proper" principles are.

I believe that if we are ever to sort out the mess we've created on this planet, a way must be found for these people to communicate with each other. Sure, many people can do this already, but not very many, and certainly not enough to do the trick. I see this as the problem of the 21st, before all others, because it is a root cause of all the other problems that get attention on TV. Whether this ongoing and growing disharmony is completely accidental is a very controversial question, something only a "conspiracy theorist" would believe so they say, but I am a proud, card carrying member of the camp that believes no, this amount of consistent disharmony is not accidental, not at all. How would one ever learn that answer to a question such as that? Any ideas?

[1] Examples from the grandparent comment: "Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul", "If something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition."

[plurinshael]

Do you mean to imply that my "type" of thinking is bad / wrong / unsafe?

[EamonnMR]

Sorry if it came off that way. Consider the inverse: if your type of thinking was changed to my type of thinking by a drug you might think twice about how safe that drug is, wouldn't you?

[pmoriarty]

Why can't science be spiritual?

[crankylinuxuser]

Because HN is primarily the realm of scientism : science as a religion. Anything that deviates from that will be -4'ed within an hour. And it even appears that discussing such will also incur the wrath of non-comment -1 voters. Without requiring a justified reason of a downvote, I don't expect this to be fixed in any reasonable timeframe.

It's an emperor's new clothes problem.

[plurinshael]

I like the idea of requiring a response in order to downvote.

[techbio]

This is not a well-formed question.