[nerdfiles]

And how did you get "ignoring mental health problems?"

How did you get that? Honestly? How? I'm telling you to read up on how ancient mysticisms categorize these problems and relate them to advanced, therapeutic drug use.

Somehow you got "ignore the problems" when I explicitly tell you to go read alternative research on the topic.

Honestly, wtf? My post says "Go read book X" on the matter, and you want to start jumping to claims of "ignorance."

Dude.

[Permit]

>Somehow you got "ignore the problems" when I explicitly tell you to go read alternative research on the topic.

The point he was making was that reading and relying on such material (ie. "ancient mysticisms") is liable to cause more harm. Explicitly telling someone to read alternative research doesn't mean a thing if that "research" is flawed.

One's time would likely be better spent reading modern research.

I think the most frustrating thing about your post is all the non-advice you give such as throwing around phrases like "become more harmonious with nature" and "understand".

[nerdfiles]

That's bias. What makes popping pills and modern science less liable to harm? Even in modern drugs today we are seeing them modeled on magic mushrooms and exotic drugs cited by McKenna and related authors. -- We're not even on the same page as we speak here.

And that's because of bias. Moreover, I've cited authors who are leaders of these fields, who present at TED and speak in recent discussion forums. McKenna is modern. Stamets is modern.

You just don't read these people, and that's why I cited the madinamerica.com article.

You're just telling me about linguistic and intellectual biases that I'm already fully aware of, and that I tried to anticipate with my post.

And operative word: "if" -- "if" that research is flawed. What are you even arguing? I could argue that against modern medicine, but that is circumstantial and requires precision. What you are saying is not precise, and hardly even relevant; or rather it is too vague to be relevant. Any research can be flawed. But there is even a further question of interpretation of that research; hence why I say "understand." You're using broad strokes as if I am doing so, when I am not.

I honestly just think it's linguistic/information exchange bias going on here. I'm citing those I'm reading. You're telling me that anything could be inaccurate or falsehood; that doesn't get us anywhere.

[CodeMage]

What makes popping pills and modern science less liable to harm?

Scientific method, one would hope.

[DanBC]

Unfortunately there's a big problem with "off label use" of psychiatric medication.

But, yes, science means we use "weird" mystic concepts like "mindfulness" (from Buddhist meditation) because we know it works for some people and some mental health problems.