| Yes, I'm familiar with Michael Hoffman's egodeath theory, and I agree with many of his historical perspectives and interpretations of religious experience. Like you say, his theory is hard to summarize. Relating to this thread, I think psychoactives can be a double-edged sword used for good or evil. Quoting Hoffman: > Given that the Empire used entheogenic mystery-religion initiation to dominate socially and oppressively, Christianity used mystery-religion initiation to emancipate/liberate ... The religions of Jesus and Caesar were in a battle over the meaning and application of mystery-religion initiation. It's a battle about what to do with the fact of mystery-religion initiation. [1] Perhaps there were mystery cults with the best of intentions, such as the Gnostics for example, who would have had good reasons to conduct their initiations in secrecy to avoid persecution. And perhaps psychoactives can be used for "short path enlightenment" as Watts would say, as well as for political control. What gives me pause for concern is the evidence of deep involvement on the part of the CIA with the drug counterculture. This is the same agency with a history of overthrowing democratically elected governments, conducting heinous psychological experiments on Americans, and not to mention torturing and murdering people around the world. They're simply not to be trusted. Yet we find the fingerprints of the CIA all over the origins of the so-called psychedelic revolution, even carefully crafting the terms and definitions in which to frame the discussion: > In the early years of research into these drugs, psychology researchers and military intelligence communities sometimes called them, aside from “hallucinogen,” by the name “psychotomimetic” –which means psychosis mimicking. The word hallucinogen, “to generate hallucinations,” came just a few years before psychotomimetic. The same year that psychotomimetic was created we also saw the creation of the word “psychedelic” – which means “to manifest the mind.” The last stage of this etymological evolution, as we’ll see, was the word “entheogen” – which means “to generate god within.” The word "entheogen" was a creation of Wasson and Ruck [2], which has the intended effect of framing discussions about psychoactives as spiritual phenomenon. Like Leary said, it's all about set and setting. Jan Irvin, a researcher in this field who I quoted above, has said that "mysticism is the tool of tyrants". It's hard to find cases in history of mysticism liberating individuals with so-called true knowledge. Usually, it's been the opposite: rational, scientifically-based discovery has been the liberator from superstition, ignorance, prejudice, and authority. I'll definitely check out csp.org since this is an area of interest for me. And I'd be happy to talk about experiences via an email discussion with you at donald dot ness at gmail dot com. [1] http://www.egodeath.com/SocioPoliticalResistanceAsThematicLa...
[2] http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_Psychede... |