Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

If one was to believe God exists in a higher dimension, it makes sense in an irrational-but-not sort of way to use drugs to help a person move beyond their mental confines. I for one do not think a “drugged” person is dimmed in consciousness or deprived of will. Most of us tend to forget we use prescription drugs to alter our own bodies in a positive way. I found it amusing but very appropriate that Watt would use himself s a guinea pig to study the effects of psychedelics on the human mind. Watt’s analogy between his usage of psychedelics and a scientists employing the use of a microscope as a tool is very adept. My only concern is that while this is a scientific experiment, what is the quality of the results? People who volunteer themselves for scientific testing can be used only for a certain amount of time because they are no longer “pure” controlled variables. Mr. Watts even states that he cannot speak for people because each experience is unique. People can do whatever they want to their own body, and even give it a higher scientific purpose, but are we suppose to make exceptions in the law for this research? Watt’s article was an intriguing read and I admire his initiative, but I do not agree that the regulation of drugs is infringing on anyone’s constitutional rights to freedom of religion.

I have never really considered the purposes of using (illicit) type drugs–especially for academic exploration. In reading Watts’s article, I found many similarities however to experiences I have had that did not involve the use of any sort of drug. I have always been a person who would rather be outside than inside, anytime. Experiencing the outdoors, for me, seems to be somewhat like what using cannabis would be to Watts–a distinct high. I think the most prominent point in my experiences is the “awareness of relativity”. I think Watts is right in stating all forms of life and being are simply variations on a single theme. In my own words, I think we, as in all organisms, are systems that have developed a means of channeling energy in an organized, uniform and predictable manner so as to impede the loss of energy from earth. Simply put, we “fight” entropy. This might sound more scientific than I intend, but the implications that arise are more fascinating.

As for the opposition to the use of such drugs, I think it is due to a clash between the ideologies behind the individual vs. the group. Western culture today attributes the life experience more to the individual (self efficacy) than to the “group”. This paradigm shift has clashed with the religious roots of western culture as the life experience seemed to be more group attributed. This is just my observation however.

When Watts was discussing his initial experiences with psychedelic drugs, the ability to control how “deep” of an experience interested me because usually taking such drugs is associated with losing control and judgment. However, as I was reading the article the characteristics he links with taking psychedelic drugs seem also to be characteristic of Asian religions or other religions that advocate bringing the human mind to a higher level. Watts addresses that later on in the article, and brings up a point I had never considered before. Becoming “one” with a higher power is not a Judeo-Christian tradition, and God has always been omnipotent and has a monarchical power. Humans will never be able to attain that level of Godliness because we were born into sin (some denominations believe). This made me think about the Native Americans who would take hallucinogens and drink alcohol to experience religious epiphanies. If there was not enough alcohol to provide intoxication, the Native Americans did not believe consuming alcohol was worth it. The oppositions he mentioned involved using drugs dangerously and using them to escape from reality. In the Native American’s case, drugs and alcohol were used simply to easily achieve that higher state of mind. Perhaps used in this sense, the opposition would not be as strong.

I personally found Watt's article a poor analysis or the religious implications regarding drug use. At one point in his article, he mentions that Abrahamic religions, such as Judiasm and Christianity, see God as a monarch, and as such fear psychedelic drug's ability to bring someone to be "at one with god." From studying and reading about Judiasm and Christianity, I can see why someone would think that God is perceived by them to be a monarch or absolute king. But studying the religion and actually practicing it are very different. From my perspective from having practiced Judiasm my whole life, though I perceive God to be omnipotent and eternal, to compare Him to a king humanizes Him and brings into question human flaws. Yes, there is order and control associated with his rule, but not the same elements associated with human kings, such as corruption, greed, envy, sinful, ect.

Look at it this way. Imagine America was a dictatorship, but the dictator wasn't just a good man, he was a perfect man: just, true, honest, modest, every good attribute and gentleman, a scholar, a warrior, and a soldier has. Imagine he provided everyone everywhere with happiness and freedom and never lied or betrayed any of his subjects. This utopia world ruled by a faultless leader is not symbolic of what I perceive God or the world to actually be like, but that is the general idea we strive for. In contrast to what Watts was arguing, we are all always one with God but never equal to him, which is the illusion psychedelic drugs seem to give people at times.

I am humbled to the fact that I am probably biased on this subject just as I feel Watts was in his article, but this is just how I feel. As a disclaimer, I do not mean to generalize or offend anyone, but I do have the rights to my own thoughts and opinions.

I found Watts account of psychoactive substances to be roughly accurate at best. While I myself would certainly not advocate the use of any mind-altering substance (Tylenol included) I will certainly grant respect for anyone willing to explore the use of substances as long as they do it in a personal way and remain responsible.
First, I disagree with the statement that a part of the psychedelic experience is the slowing of time. Time doesn't always slow down. MDMA is an example of a hallucinogenic/psychedelic drug that tends to make time go by faster (so I’ve been told). Therefore it would be more correct to say time distorts.
Secondly Watts doesn’t mention much about visual distortions caused by several of the substances he reportedly consumed. Phenethylamines, tryptamines and lysergic amides, being hallucinogenic drugs, can inhibit wickedly intense open and closed eye visuals. However, the intensity of these visual distortions is directly related to the amount consumed. Cannabis was the only substance Watts used that doesn’t easily distort a user’s visual perception with visual hallucinations. A large portion of the religious experience that goes along with psychedelic substances is typically the visual and auditory aspects of the trip (the duration of the substances effect).
I believe that opposition to these substances is just; however, Watts seemed to throw in a critique of politics and religion before most of the relevant oppositions was discussed. When used irresponsibly psychedelic drugs will make the user a harm to himself and a harm to others. As a product of the rave culture I have witnessed people experiencing “bad trips” and it’s not an easy experience to deal with. A population with an expanded consciousness that is able to relate to the relative-ness of communal and cooperative existence is dangerous. That’s why opposition to the hippy movement was so strong.

I found a part Armstrongs argument that, in a nutshell, stated that secularism needs to learn to appreciate religiousness and vise versa seems like a common sense argument. So why aren’t we living hand in hand? It seems to me that we’re exposed to a lot more violence stemming from the side of fundamentalism than secularism being that we’re in western culture. I consider this lack of exposure one of the key elements that keeps the secularists and the religious from seeing eye to eye. Another reason for the lack of understanding, at least in my opinion, is that fundamentalists seem to only offer conversion as the way to reach a mutual understanding with secularists. Of course that notion is absurd because it would obliterate the secularist ideals. I can’t say that I’ve ever heard about secularists or atheists doing mission. New avenues must be explored if a common ground is hoped to be reached between religious and secular groups. Maybe our next stage of evolution will begin to detach us from this idea that mankind needs to know the divine in order to gain salvation, and allow for mankind to stop quarrelling over a legendary holy-land and killing his fellow man in the name of his savior.

The idea of using psychedelic drugs to be on the same wavelength as God is absolutely bizarre to me. I was thinking that if this is something God wants for us (regardless if God is monotheistic or not), wouldn’t He have made these drugs naturally? But I think this goes back to our discussion as to whether all forms of drugs (legal and illegal) are against God’s plan because they cause us to do things that He didn’t create us to do (such as live longer, alter our thinking, etc).
I thought the points that this author brought up were very interesting, especially about the concentration on the present. I think that it’s good to be reminded to live in the present and to not waste all of your time thinking about the future. I think that this applies to me a lot, because I plan everything and sometimes I need to remind myself to stop and smell the roses. All together, I thought the four points he made were interesting, but I could not stop myself from thinking that this writer is suggesting we use LSD to reach a God-like state. It was hard for me to take it seriously, but I think that that’s also because of the social standards concerning drugs.

My initial thought before I read the article by Watts was that the use of a psychedelic for religious purposes is fraught with challenges and should not be allowed. I hold the same opinion after reading the article. I think Watts underestimates/undervalues the challenges he lists at the end of the article. First, Watts says that psychedelic drugs may be dangerous, similar to mountain climbing, etc. The difference between mountain climbing and drug use is that a user’s behavior and actions under the influence of drugs affects unwilling participants around him/her. Users under the influence have been known to act recklessly and harm others around them. Watts describes episodes of insanity. While Watts may want to use psychedelics for religious purposes, it would quickly open the door for other purposes. How to do control the use of psychedelics for religious purpose vs. just for the sake of getting high? Does Watts honestly believe that no drug user uses LSD to escape reality? Watts mentions that LSD is a particularly difficult experience. Is everyone prepared to experience testing their soul “against all the devils in hell” as Watts describes? I do not support the use of psychedelics for religious purpose or the deregulation of psychedelics. I also disagree with Watts’ description about the conflicts between government and religion, but I’ll save that for my weekly reflection.

I believe that human beings are incredibly intelligent and have accomplished much. We have been able to build these great cities and develop these magnificent “tools.” But at the same time, Karen Armstrong made me think about how humans are in general, pretty full of themselves. Karen Armstrong wrote, “Copernicus unseated us from the center of the universe, and relegated us to a peripheral role. Kant declared that we could never be certain that our ideas corresponded to any reality outside our own heads. Darwin suggested that we were simply animals, and Freud showed that far from being wholly rational creatures, human beings were at the mercy of the powerful, irrational forces of the unconscious, which could be accessed only with great difficulty.” We (humans) have so many questions and there is so much we don’t know. Humans are no match for nature – look at Katrina, the tsunami, or the recent earthquakes. We have done what some say is irreversible damage to the Earth. Yet when hundreds of people are killed we ask ourselves, ‘How could we let this happen? It was preventable.’ Humans can prepare for terrible events, but we can’t prevent them. We seem to believe that we can solve or prevent anything, and when we fail to do so, it is difficult for humans to accept.

Additional thought to add to my previous post:
I mentioned that I do not support the use of psychedelics for religious purposes. Just to be clear, this is NOT to say that I OPPOSE the use of psychedelics for religious purposes--to each their own is how I feel about personal use. However, I DO OPPOSE deregulation of psychedelics. There is a difference between my opinions on public policy and personal use.

The article on Psychedelics was really interesting. What struck me about it was the author’s purpose for using psychedelics: religion. This is a reason for doing drugs that one hardly ever hears of, especially as a college student. The article also had such a unique approach to using the drugs – a scientific one. This is also a way to do drugs that one hardly ever hears about in their adolescence. One other thing that really stuck me about the article was the fact that Eastern cultures congratulate those who become one with the universe or God while Western cultures claim those to be blasphemous. The disparity is intriguing.
In the Armstrong article, I liked the analogy to cooking (baking a cake using the wrong ingredients could turn out tasty, but will most likely be nasty, so it is best to stick to what we know) when talking about modernity. Other than that, I wished I had had some more background information as to why this is what she chose to talk about in her afterword.

Armstrong's article was very interesting to me and something that I have thought about a lot. Religion is often something that people say saves them or saves their soul. It is supposed to bring peace to some people's lives and give them a better understanding of the world. However, the article and the world at large show that we really do not have a good understanding of how some people who have the same basic concepts branch off into more extreme ideas. The extreme ideas have often lead to killings and mass murders on a religious basis. This topic always makes me think about how times have changed from a religious perspective. Many years ago before real laws were really put in place a kind of religious law was used and people dying for their religion at this time was not really uncommon. Now that times have changed and laws and more political wars have occurred and dying for your country on a more political level is the norm. However, today, dying for ones religion is now out of the norm and many people view it as crazy. I understand that times have changed as well as social norms but if many people still hold religious beliefs that date back at least thousand years then i just wonder why we are still shocked of religious suicides or sacrifices. I do not agree with the religious cruelties but it seems hard to expect people to change if many aspects of religion may not be.

My initial reaction to the use of drugs to reach a spiritual experience is negative. Like my reaction to the extension of ones life 10 fold, I find myself asking, "Is it natural?" Then, when taking a step back, I find it difficult to define and discribe exactly what natural means. But, I can't help but believe that this is an unnatural evocation.

I have read other stories, like the book on Don Juan, a Native American medicine man who uses "natural" roots and mushrooms and such to reach a state of "knowledge," he calls it. He almost advocates the use of such drugs as a prerequisite to reaching such a state. My mind can't seem to agree, as of now anyway. Though, it was pointed out earlier by Vy, we use medicine daily to alter our bodies, what's the difference here? I find it difficult at attempting to draw the line.

For one, I do not see the purpose in using drugs in any way for any type of thing. I never have a need to use drugs. And to use drugs for some religious reason is just plain stupid. I just think that the thought of using drugs for specific reasons due to God or whatever is not good.

The idea of reaching a mystical, or "numinous" experience through the use of psychedelic drugs is valid, but must be qualified. Psychedelics allow one to reach a "oneness" with the universe, that reminds me of the ancient Chinese idea of Tao, but this is by no means a blanket experience. Watts asserts that LSD is "by no means a soft and cushy escape from reality." While it is true that LSD, shrooms or cannabis can be used to take real, emotional, even religious journeys, it is by no means true that these drugs (even LSD) cannot be used as escapist. The important thing is intent and context, which is something recognized by the government when it comes to peyote use by Native Americans in religious ceremonies (though such regulation of less traditional substances).

For anyone that looks over posts, I just want to let everyone know that saying that these drugs aren't natural is wrong. DMT comes from many different plants and exists in our brains. In fact the only unnaturally occurring drug that Watts consumed was LSD-25, which is a synthetic lysergic amide synthesized from the ergot fungus. You can do a lysergic acid amide (LSA) extraction on several different kinds of plant seeds as well as ergot fungus. So what Watts primarily did was consume a cactus, consume mushrooms, and consume a flower. Organic chemistry for the win.

I think the idea of using psychedelic drugs to provoke a religious experience is a little laughable. Being that I don’t believe in a god in the first place, it seems like the use of drugs in this context would be sort of purposeless. This would be similar to looking for figures in the clouds; finding meaning in something that has no meaning (outside of its original purpose). The experiences someone may have after using psychedelics may bring some religious revelation, but there are physical explanations for this. Any thought or feeling that someone has while using these drugs should be strictly attributed to the drug itself, not some higher power that is finally letting them see the light. One thing I did agree with Watts about is that our society in general is far too focused on the future. If someone is perpetually worried about what is to come, how can they possibly take the time to appreciate what is unfolding right in front of them? I’m not sure, however, that the cure for this is the use of psychedelic drugs. Maybe just some conscious reflection on one’s own life would do the trick.

Although interesting, I feel that Watt’s article about the use of psychedelic drugs as a means of communicating with God explains the highly unlikely. Although many claim that they have had vivid religious experiences while using these drugs, this type of claim is impossible to prove. Like many religious claims such as creationism and intelligent design, the link between drugs and religion is impossible to extend past the status of a theory. Even if a drug produces hallucinations, it does not mean it has any religious significance. A person on drugs may experience many different types of hallucinations but what makes a religious “experience” any more significant than any other vision? Another question I have about the use of psychedelics to communicate with God is why would God choose to communicate through these types of drugs given the fact that they are used by only a small proportion of the population? A more logical means of communication would seem to take place through some medium common the majority of the population.

Reading Karen Armstrong’s Afterword, Turkey kept entering my thoughts. The “modern ideal” of the separation of religion from politics is embodied in the example of Turkey. In one of the most Muslim nations in the world, Turkey requires a complete division of these two realms. The secularism found in Turkey goes so far as to be counterproductive. In public universities, head scarves cannot be worn on women (which has caused many women to leave the country for their education). There has been a change from Arabic script to the Roman alphabet for Turkish writing. Every step suggests that Turkey wants to have this distinction made between religion and state, between the old and the modern, which Armstrong describes. I wonder in situations like this one whether at some point there will be a “fundamentalist rebellion against the hegemony of the secular”. Will there be an attempt in such a secularized government to “re-sacralize” society? It seems to be the next logical step. I think that when a country becomes so aggressively and unnaturally secularized, it is expected that it will at some point experience an attempt at re-sacrilization. From what Armstrong suggests, this is my expectation for Turkey.

There has always been a struggle between the two worlds of secularism and fundamentalism and especially religion in general. I have experienced conflict with friends and family that are mainly Christian, regarding my stance on religion. Armstrong states that “if fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance, and respect for humanity…and address themselves more empathetically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbors experience.” I feel that Armstrong sympathizes much more with the fundamentalist side of things and at times disregards the struggle of those that do not commit themselves to any religion. There have been many times when I have been chastised regarding my stance against organized religion or questioning of God. I feel it is quite important that fundamentalists also choose acknowledge the secularists side of things without immediately deciding to judge. By all means I am not lumping everyone in together or stating that as a whole that those that choose to include themselves in organized religion also immediately negatively judge others that don’t, but I have also experienced those that immediately do. This goes the same for secularists. Secularists also are often quick to judge. There are times when secularists cannot see beyond their own point of view and speak down to those that follow the Scripture or any organized religion. There does need to be some type of truce between these two groups, otherwise there will be no peace between those with differing opinions and instead secularists will continue to be viewed, as Godless and “disturbed” and fundamentalists will continue “witch-hunts” against them refusing to embrace the modern world.

Reading Watt’s article helped me further understand the historical context under which, Nixon and the “silent majority” began the debacle called “the war on drugs” we are left with today. Parents got scared when they heard that these drugs would “spiritually enlighten” their kids into disregarding gainful employment in favor (“living in the moment”) staring at a glass of water all day in search of “meaning”. If Watt’s and people like him were right, wide spread LSD and marijuana use might create a national spiritual awakening, but would simultaneously ruin all societal infrastructure, (including the publishing industry that put food on Watt’s table) as long term planning is requirement to sustain industry, education and government.

If an adult feels that doing anything, including LSD or marijuana, brings the closer to God, I say more power to you. However, personally I don’t think the use of any mind-altering substance brings a person closer to God.

Lost track of time, sorry Kapper.

I think that the use of psychedelic drugs in general is a bad thing, so to say that they would be allowed in a place of worship is a little absurd from my perspective. Christians do not have a place for that in the Lutheran sect, and I do not see the need to use them if you are truly trying to connect to God in a spiritual way. All the psychedelic drugs would do is elevate your senses and possibly project weird images. For some people that is their thing, and I respect that. But I personally don't think it belongs in a place of worship.

Spiritually enlightening could be seen through meditation and some may argue that fasting would induce a euphoric sensation. This is a natural thing to do. On the other hand, popping a pill or smoking some dope is inducing a chemical response, one in which I do not feel is natural (others would disagree). Overall, Watt's projected a way to better understand the the history behind hallucinagins, but its not something I will not participate in.

I really enjoyed reading Karen Armstrong's writing about pre-modern religion in comparison to todays. I think a big issue about religion today is that of consistency. One thing that can be respected about the Muslim world is that they continue to hold true to the same values that they always have, same with Mormons. You'll (probably) never see either of these two beliefs accepting homosexuality, for example. However, many other Christian sects are struggling to 'modernize' their image in order to appeal to the masses... yet another example of 'picking and choosing' what to believe and preach.

I found the Watts article to be a very poor argument for pro-psychedelic drug use. It is like all the other pro-drug articles I have read. Some fact but mostly riddled with personal experience. Not convincing enough for me.
However, in my personal experience with drug use, I have never had any sort of religious epiphany. If you are after a more accurate depiction of what is like to take drugs actually used for religious/ceremonial purposes I recommend reading "Tales of a Shamans Apprentice". It was written by a man who is a botanist and travels to South America to document the plants that the native people used in ceremonies or that were important to their culture. In the book he describes how a Shaman make a paste to put on an old knee injury, he claims the pain went away for a number of months. He also used some hallucinogenic drugs while living with these people and documented their life and culture the best he could before it becomes lost to the western world.
The only reason that some of these drugs should become legalized or decriminalized is if they truly hold a religious purpose or can aid people who have health problems.

In reading the articles for this week, I had several very different thoughts. Here they are in all of their departedness:

Karen Armstrong:

1. I was struck by the following excerpt from Armstrong: "Hobbes imagined God retreating from the world, and Nietzsche declared that God was dead: humanity had lost its orientation and was hurtling toward an infinite nothingness." This reminded me of my obsession with the computer game, SimCity. It is a game in which the player creates a virtual city with roads; power stations; residential, commercial, and industrial zones; bus stops and train stations; all complete with a functioning city government, its taxpayers, and laws to govern them. The objective of the game is to create a flourishing city generating taxes that bring it into the modern age. Sometimes I would create a city that lost enough money making it impossible to recover, or it developed into something that was unacceptable to me. In such a case, I would abandon the city and start from scratch with a new one. What if God is the same way? Perhaps God was unhappy with what human existence had become, and he abandoned us to create a better civilization. This could explain the genocides, natural disasters, and other atrocities that have occured, reasons for which atheists argue there can be no God.

2. Over human history, religious fundamentalism has arisen in every branch of religion. Even today, fundamentalists use their faiths to justify the oppression of women, the condemnation of gays, the physical punishment and killing of those they deem immoral or criminal (i.e. the chopping off of a thief’s hand in medieval times, or the death penalty in today’s time), and the genocide of vast groups of people. Perhaps if there were no religion, there would be no reason to justify such actions. Perhaps without religion, we would center ourselves on the good and the opportunities available in our current life rather than that which may not be available in the one after. Though contrary to the usual thought, perhaps we could live more decently in a more moral society without religion.

Alan Watts:

3. I have never taken any drug other than alcohol, though I have talked to many (including friends of mine) who have. I have always been interested to learn what such an experience is like, and I was thus intrigued by the following description by Watts: “One's normally compulsive concern for the future decreases, and one becomes aware of the enormous importance and interest of what is happening at the moment. Other people, going about their business on the streets, seem to be slightly crazy, failing to realize that the whole point of life is to be fully aware of it as it happens.” I have come to such an awareness before during short moments of deep thought or epiphany, though probably not as intensely as if I were under the influence of a psychedelic drug. It is interesting to me that we live our entire lives focused on making our future. We save money for college, we plan for retirement, we take out insurance on our homes, our cars, even our lives. Even the act of walking down the street (as mentioned above) requires us to know our eventual destination, how we will get there, and what we will do when we get there. These are the thoughts that occupy our minds 99.9% of the time. Very seldom do we get a chance to extract ourselves from our lives, clear our minds, and reflect on the present moment, to step forward and look at what is in front of us rather than always stepping back to look at the big picture as society always insists. Watts points out that “foresight is bought at the price of anxiety, and when overused it destroys all its own advantages.” We will become damaged beings if we do not stop to smell the roses.

These articles were describing a lot of things I have been meditating on recently. Specifically what struck me about the Watts article was this idea that once you get the message hang up the phone. I know so many people who have ruined their lives with excess use of drugs. This is a more and more common story every day. But this does not have to happen. Watts clearly states in the article that he is only trying to find the essence of spiritual experiences. You can achieve the things he is describing through meditation, yoga, prayer, and many other means. The real thing that is going on is an revolution of consciousness. But many people fail to see that every time a record spins that is a revolution. What I have come to realize through my own practice of yoga and meditation is that this world is just a test. All we see and experience is merely an illusion that disconnects us from the eternal experience. When we look beyond ourselves and what we think we can comprehend the power of our minds becomes limitless. But once you have achieved that you have a choice. This is a difficult and pressing matter. You can choose to leave this world and travel beyond your limits or you can stay in this existence and help others achieve a higher purpose. So at that moment once the decision is made that is it. The eternal truth has been shown to you and at that moment it is all or nothing, with no going back. This is a scary choice that most people don't even want to think about it. However, in many indigineous people that use drugs there is a reoccuring theme that it is fear that drives us. The fear of not making the choice and going into the unknown or walking the path of the divine is the ultimate factor that drives us in all decisions. These non-christian/western concepts strike fear into the hearts of those who are traditionally christian/western thinking. For them the real issue is reverse. This is due to thousands of years of oppression and social conditioning that God is man mainly the king or pope who rules over the lives of the subjugated people. In this respect the fear is misplaced. The unknown is not the fear that you did nothing in this life. The fear is not preparing for the next life. The path of God in the western mind is a path of devotion of deeds to the king/pope/church who abuses the people for money and power not the eternal expression of one. This is the ultimate cause of the drug war which is really a war on God. If God is everywhere in everything then why do we make his creations illegal? How can we justify the millions who have ruined their lives due to drug use when we are the cause of the use due to prohibation and social conditioning? Unfortunately in the western world the prohibition of some plants has limited the number of those who can achieve spiritual enlightenment and be trapped to promote the power and money of the ruling class.