[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