GENIUS FORUMS

Steven, Jr wrote:

That was my intention -

My mistake, then. I assumed that since we have never concerned ourselves in any way with cups of tea anywhere other than on AIM, that was your intention. (Might I suggest you do a little more thinking before you post--that way, you will likely not have to edit the content of your posts so much.)

What are you alluding to, my bipolar disorder?

I am not much interested in psychiatric labels ([ironic that you should mention it] the current force behind the legislation by the government of what would otherwise be considered a detrimental use of drugs). I am, however, interested--like I said--in your bias; the “philosophy” that apparently develops from mind-altering drugs.

On the bipolar thing: obviously, you would not trust yourself without the use of these drugs. I could hardly see you taking them if you could.

Had they not been regulated and legalised as they are currently, what philosophical benefit would you have received instead from LSD or peyote or bags full of marijuana if they were legal and on what basis do you make such a judgement?

On what basis should a person like me give any merit to the ideas of people who claim a greater consciousness and humanism as a result of drug use in support of the unfettered legalisation of LSD etc.?

Because YOU believe?

Fuck. Spot the substance in that! (Pun intended.)

I am hoping that my bias is loud and clear, by now.

La Verdad, I will get back to you later. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that I think you are very narrow-minded on the subject.

I think all drugs should be legal.

The only trouble with legality is taxation. Users' problem -- like gasoline and cigarettes.

Legalizing illicit drug use would eliminate need for physicians to prescribe pain medicine.

Blessed relief. People could just go to the corner store and get a fix.

Would make my job easier if people with chronic pain could buy weed or morphine over the counter.

Faizi

La Verdad, I will get back to you later. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that I think you are very narrow-minded on the subject.

Likewise <3

Looks like Mexico is headed toward legalization.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html

What are you alluding to, my bipolar disorder?

I am not much interested in psychiatric labels ([ironic that you should mention it] the current force behind the legislation by the government of what would otherwise be considered a detrimental use of drugs). I am, however, interested--like I said--in your bias; the “philosophy” that apparently develops from mind-altering drugs.

I think you are reading too much into "the philosophy" that taking certain drugs produces.

On the bipolar thing: obviously, you would not trust yourself without the use of these drugs. I could hardly see you taking them if you could.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. My mind remains lucid during a manic episode, all too lucid. The hinderence of bipolar disorder, is the velocity of thought, with no release valve.

Had they not been regulated and legalised as they are currently, what philosophical benefit would you have received instead from LSD or peyote or bags full of marijuana if they were legal and on what basis do you make such a judgement?

These drugs open the mind to its deeper regions, producing a dialogue with the subconscious mind, in many cases, enabling visions and other theraputic phenomena. If they were legalized, I am convinced that a more widespread gnosis concerning their beneficial effects would be distributed and published.

On what basis should a person like me give any merit to the ideas of people who claim a greater consciousness and humanism as a result of drug use in support of the unfettered legalisation of LSD etc.?

Because YOU believe?

Fuck. Spot the substance in that! (Pun intended.)

I am hoping that my bias is loud and clear, by now.

Did you read any of the literature I posted? -- Eight Circuit Consciousness, Erowid, Deoxy?

Steven: To see the day when a government is philosophically stable enough to freely research the benefits of peyote, salvia, and psliocybin, would be a marvel,…

Leyla: What the hell is a philosophically stable government?

Steven: A government which openly promotes the love of wisdom, its cultivation, with no bounderies. Only then, could a state be accurately relegated as stable.

~

Steven: I believe that for psychologically adept individuals, consciousness exploration, via medicinal plants, can promote psychological healing, as well as philosophical insight. Again, I am speaking from personal experience.

And I am reading too much into “the philosophy” that taking certain drugs produces?

Given the above, then, you can only be saying that you personally would have had no chance for any sort of philosophical insight without mind-altering drugs.

Is that your argument in a nutshell?

What, then, is a psychologically adept individual?

I wrote (to Pye's comment):

The impulses are not related. There is only one impulse--in this instance: philosophy. .

Then there are those who use drugs to escape from the mind--pain, emotional or otherwise--driven by the one impulse: escapism.

And the qualitative difference between these two impulses? Wisdom. That’s how you tell a fantasising junkie from a philosopher worth his salt.

On that basis, legalisation of drugs comes to naught and the oh-so-prized freedom that is the object of this discussion becomes nothing but a red-herring.

La Verdad wrote:

I'm aware most people who use drugs aren't going to philosophize under their influence (just as most people don't philosophize in general), that still doesn't mean that the freedom to use them is somehow a 'red-herring' - it was a freedom that used to be common throughout the West...

Since you put up this guy's position apparently as an argument against mine, are you saying that the consideration of wisdom is second to nostalgia?

For what reason did you respond defensively to my post?

La Verdad also wrote:

The government has no right decide whether a person decides to use drugs (unless they're in public, or pregnant of course), they should be subject to the same scrutiny as every other commodity:[snip]

OK, so they do have a right. What is your point?

And...

<3

What is that?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Steven: To see the day when a government is philosophically stable enough to freely research the benefits of peyote, salvia, and psliocybin, would be a marvel,…

Leyla: What the hell is a philosophically stable government?

Steven: A government which openly promotes the love of wisdom, its cultivation, with no bounderies. Only then, could a state be accurately relegated as stable.

~

Steven: I believe that for psychologically adept individuals, consciousness exploration, via medicinal plants, can promote psychological healing, as well as philosophical insight. Again, I am speaking from personal experience.

And I am reading too much into “the philosophy” that taking certain drugs produces?

Given the above, then, you can only be saying that you personally would have had no chance for any sort of philosophical insight without mind-altering drugs.

Is that your argument in a nutshell?

What, then, is a psychologically adept individual?

Ingestion of mind-altering substances produces, in certain individuals, an inclination towards a more humanist philosophy: a philosophy which is contingent upon the user's inherent mindset.

The same line of reasoning is true for any non-humanist philosophical insights garnered from the experience.

A distinction needs to be made between the usage of philosophies. A philosophically stable government, reflects the classic definition of philosophy -- systematic pursuit of wisdom. A philosophy that may surface due to the ingestion of psychoactives, is geared more towards a personal set of ideas and values.

Leyla is right. The object of freedom to use drugs is a red herring. Consider it for a while. Why should 'the law' or 'laws' enter into this at all? I applaud her for not being prepared to push a solution.

:D

I'd better expand on this before I split my sides on what might follow. Freedom to use drugs is not freedom to use them while freedom to buy/sell them exists. The argument that the latter freedom lessens once the former is instituted---is no argument against this.

Ingestion of mind-altering substances produces, in certain individuals, an inclination towards a more humanist philosophy: a philosophy which is contingent upon the user's inherent mindset.

The same line of reasoning is true for any non-humanist philosophical insights garnered from the experience.

Um, "yes" would have done it, Steven.

A distinction needs to be made between the usage of philosophies. A philosophically stable government, reflects the classic definition of philosophy -- systematic pursuit of wisdom. A philosophy that may surface due to the ingestion of psychoactives, is geared more towards a personal set of ideas and values.

So, how does this philosophically stable government deal with the two philosophically different individuals you mention above, systematically?

I am still interested in your answer to this question--I think it's most relevant:

What, then, is a psychologically adept individual?

Well, well, zag--could be that we are somehow related, after all.

Um, "yes" would have done it, Steven.

Okay. But, you misrepresented my argument.

What, then, is a psychologically adept individual?

A psychologically adept individual, displays a skillful knowledge of human psychology [.]

So, how does this philosophically stable government deal with the two philosophically different individuals you mention above, systematically?

Systematic distribution of their opposing knowledge.

Steven wrote:

Okay. But, you misrepresented my argument.

Bollocks. I presented you with a question, which you obviously cannot give a straight answer to.

How is this:

I believe that for psychologically adept individuals, consciousness exploration, via medicinal plants, can promote psychological healing, as well as philosophical insight. Again, I am speaking from personal experience.

Ingestion of mind-altering substances produces, in certain individuals, an inclination towards a more humanist philosophy: a philosophy which is contingent upon the user's inherent mindset.

The same line of reasoning is true for any non-humanist philosophical insights garnered from the experience.

Different to this:

Given the above, then, you can only be saying that you personally would have had no chance for any sort of philosophical insight without mind-altering drugs.

You’re not trying to tell me that there can be no philosophical insight or psychological healing (humanist or otherwise) for anyone without mind-altering drugs, are you?

A psychologically adept individual, displays a skillful knowledge of human psychology [.]

You mean: displays skilfully applied knowledge of human psychology?

Such a person, then, would understand precisely the nature of government and would not lament its condition.

Okay. But, you misrepresented my argument.

Bollocks. I presented you with a question, which you obviously cannot give a straight answer to.

Bull-locks. I'll custom modify it for you.

How is this:

I believe that for psychologically adept individuals, consciousness exploration, via medicinal plants, can promote psychological healing, as well as philosophical insight. Again, I am speaking from personal experience.

Ingestion of mind-altering substances produces, in certain individuals, an inclination towards a more humanist philosophy: a philosophy which is contingent upon the user's inherent mindset.

The same line of reasoning is true for any non-humanist philosophical insights garnered from the experience.

Different to this:

Given the above, then, you can only be saying that you personally would have had no chance for any sort of philosophical insight without mind-altering drugs.

Only.

(No chance?)

You’re not trying to tell me that there can be no philosophical insight or psychological healing (humanist or otherwise) for anyone without mind-altering drugs, are you?

No, all I'm saying is that it is possible.

A psychologically adept individual, displays a skillful knowledge of human psychology [.]

You mean: displays skillfully applied knowledge of human psychology?

Such a person, then, would understand precisely the nature of government and would not lament its condition.

My intention was for "display" to also imply apply.

If it helps you to decipher, insert your own language for meaning, like you did above.

You think in absolutes, I would suggest also applying your mind to thinking relatively.

Lamentation can bring knowledge to mind. And that knowledge can bring about social change.

(No chance?)

?

Just a vague reminder to be cautious when arriving at your conclusions -- with a tinge of ego.

I wasn't asking you what you meant by it.

My reasons were two-fold: a demonstration of your general form of expression--"vague" is one good word for it; and, a taking up of your recommendation to think "relatively" by questioning your question.

Largely, it was a rhetorical question. Though I would hope that you would consider the answer.

Vagueness is something I'm currently working on.

Thanks.

.

Leyla, I am curious to know where you see a definitive line between what is a mind-altering drug, and, say, a cup of coffee.

not being snotty, I promise. I know of nothing ingested that does not affect the mind, even a large glass of cool water. I'm curious to know what constitutes unacceptable mind-alteration for you; where you draw the line.

.

Context, really.

Yes, even vitamins are mind-altering drugs. The category could be broadened to include other stimulants as well: aural and visual phenomena, such as music and paintings.

This is why the question of legalisation of drugs is a red-herring.

I make the same distinction between mind-altering drugs and non-mind-altering drugs as I do between pathology and psychology: each represent a different aspect of the same condition.

Man-made laws on psychotropic drugs--such as the freedom to use drugs--will never reach what matters.

Well, well, zag--could be that we are somehow related, after all.

In more than mere humanity sister!

Everyone draws the line at loss of consciousness, or someone draws it around them, yes?

:D

As an older deader relative would have said, one mans food is anothers intoxication.

I'm aware most people who use drugs aren't going to philosophize under their influence (just as most people don't philosophize in general), that still doesn't mean that the freedom to use them is somehow a 'red-herring' - it was a freedom that used to be common throughout the West...

Since you put up this guy's position apparently as an argument against mine, are you saying that the consideration of wisdom is second to nostalgia?

For what reason did you respond defensively to my post?

I put up that guys position since because it is wise, and it largely summarizes my own. Letting people over the age of 18 take drugs is the philosophically just (not to mention practical) thing to do.

As for my response, how exactly do you expect people to react when you call them narrow-minded?
My uncle died because heroin use destroyed his heart, I've spent plenty of time debating and thinking over the issues surrounding legalization.
You don't know me - and on top of that you've never even debated with me, (and haven't responded to my position for that matter).

Yes, even vitamins are mind-altering drugs. The category could be broadened to include other stimulants as well: aural and visual phenomena, such as music and paintings.

This is why the question of legalisation of drugs is a red-herring.

lol. Since all stimuli in some way alter the mind, let's keep the thread on topic - legalization of currently illegal drugs.

Drug, n.
A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
http://www.dictionary.com

A Rembrandt or My Humps don't count as chemical substances, although for all I know they may effect the CNS. These are not drugs.