GENIUS FORUMS

It's quite common that new members arrive here because they have recently discovered some profound aspect of reality with the help of drugs, both the mild kinds like weed, and stronger psychedelics like mushrooms. So I thought it might benefit some of us to have a thread focused on that topic.

First off, I admit that I smoke weed, regularly at times, and I usually enjoy it. The short term memory and detachment it induces allows for a nice temporal relief from the stress of every day life as a working American. It is not uncommon for me to experience some significant insights while under its influence. So I would agree that drugs can be quite useful in that aspect. But one must be responsible with these experiences, and take them for what they are: temporal, commonly euphoric, altered states of mind. It does not reveal to you a reality any more or less real than sober reality. It merely frees you to think a little more creatively, but can cause you to forget that Reality is right in front of you at all times.

In experiencing drug induced dissociation, one may discover a somewhat accurate insight into the nature of reality, e.g. the illusionary nature of things (I say 'somewhat' here because, although the discovery of the illusionary nature of things is correct in itself, it cannot alone be representative of wisdom without being fully consistent with all else that wisdom entails). For a mind that is not thoroughly trained in logic, the insight discovered coupled along with the euphoria experienced can be thought of as a form of premature enlightenment. The dangers of such an event include an egotistical attachment to the feeling one experiences in such a state. As a result one begins to feel an emotional depravity of euphoric states in between doses.

Though it relieves the stress of normal every day life, it achieves this nowhere near as well as perfecting ones knowledge of the nature of reality. It acts as a shortcut, or a preview in a way, but not without downfalls. You may be able to glimpse into the euphoric joy that comes with experiencing a perfect knowledge of reality, but in the end all it is doing is triggering the processes in the brain that correspond with the bliss of non-attachment, and as a result, the crucial part of the mind that deals with logic goes untrained, and at worse, will atrophy.

Along with this comes an attachment to the insight(s) discovered while high. It becomes a "core principle," so to speak. But because the insight is intimately tied to the euphoric feeling, which is eventually lost in soberness, the user may then resort to thinking about and vehemently believing in those limited insights in order to bring about a deja vu of the euphoria, causing the user to feel especially assertive and correct about this insight. In this way the insight becomes a "fix" for the user. The rest of nature, and as a result, the rest of wisdom, becomes unimportant, and ignored.

In summary, drugs can induce a "false enlightenment" by forcing dissociation within the mind. But real enlightenment involves training the mind to realize and know, through and through, with logic and reason, the true nature of reality.

[In another thread, Diebert posted a link to an interesting article about DMT that helps explain the affects drug have on the mind, which I think compliments the topic: http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?id=dmt_pickover]

That aspect of stress relief you mention Russell, is one thing that could be fleshed out a bit more. Especially with the modern designer drugs like lets say the family of MDA/MDMA/6APB there's this aspect of being temporary put far outside the usual loop of worries, negativity, projections, pressure or emotional responses. What remains is a bit dependent on the person and environment but is not as much euphoria (I'd call it contentment) but actually at the base extreme calmness and lightness. It's not being reported as an unnatural state, more that through unnatural means some things are taken away, things of which one was hardly aware of they were pressing so hard. This effect is stronger and more complete than plain weed could do. Weed has more passive elements to it (why "bother") while the mentioned designer drugs are more amphetamine based so keeps one active and engaging somewhat, which would explain the popularity in the dance scene. This is also the reason MDA was used with great success in therapeutic sessions: people remained sharp but less defensive. Until it was outlawed because of the massive usage by the younger ones without supervision.

That aspect of remaining sharp and clear while emotional baggage mostly disabled resulting in a more "fearless" unbound mind could be very helpful at some stage to people exploring themselves. Then again, some people seem to react with great fear when the familiar pressure is removed. As far as I can gather people do not get hooked on it and the interest in it often wanes naturally, although perhaps for different reasons in each case.

This to add to your post that the story differs a bit depending on the drug. Drugs like DMT and LSD are in a different category as they introduce really different worlds and/or warping of awareness. In my view that is philosophically nearly "barbaric" but some might need it to widen their outlook a bit. Not to mention the danger of putting great stress on your brain to cope with all that weirdness. With weed and xtc types of drugs it's more about mood and disabling some of the mind's disturbances -- but not addressing them which is the problematic part right there. And weed doesn't even enable one to introspect much the problematic parts. With DMA/MDMA drugs the introspection is still possible if the setting allows it but at the same time can be overwhelming.

That said, anything related to speed, cocaine and variants is completely dumb as it only provides euphoria against a price way too steep. The mild variation on this are the coffee/nicotine/fat addictions: it doesn't really last long but one gets caught in the cycle and is therefore repeated.

I agree that things like weed can be beneficial with widening someones perspective early on, but as you said it is at a price, people attach to such experiences and become overly defensive about them, sort of like a religious person with a t-shirt "JESUS IS LORD!". Trying to convince themselves more than anything, and so they stay where they are comfortable and will fight to the death to hold on to a belief structure.

At most I think it is reasonable for young adults to try only the 'weakest' of substances like weed to create insight, but after having those initial experiences it should be completely abandoned.

Long term or even semi-regular use of any substance, even drinking, will continuously create a haze which inhibits a clear insight. More often than not it can cause more stress and will take away the ability to deal with situations calmly and without delusion, it brings about clinging.

In my opinion, once someone is enlightened they can do a lot of things that would normally be considered foolish, but can do them without the chance of suffering or clinging to delusions and are hence not foolish actions.

If someone was living in a bush with nothing to do and they were dopey and happy then I can't see any negative effects, but you said you are working and regularly interacting with others, negative effects can easily arise in such a case.

In other words, unless you are isolated, if you are planning on interacting with people or going to a job, you shouldn't do it high as you will be dopey and won't think clearly which may cause suffering that could have easily have been avoided.

Either way it isn't necessary and should be avoided, "one should refrain from intoxicating drinks or drugs." - Buddha

Something similar to a quote... Why be caught up in pleasure/suffering when there is a greater non-attached bliss to be had?

I have experimented myself and found little to no enlightenment with their use. I do experience the typical euphoria but in addition to that I experience racing, barely connected thoughts. They are often triggered by certain diction which leads to obscurely linked memories. If I happen to be alone when I smoke the effects seem far more muted. It seems as though all my emotions caused by interaction with others are amplified. The only thing I could say that I became enlightened about would possibly be the fact that I am normally out of touch with my emotions as of the past few years because it was such a stark contrast. Being that my only "enlightenment" was that single revelation I would definitely not say it is the greatest thing in the world but not altogether bad either.

Orenholt wrote:The only thing I could say that I became enlightened about would possibly be the fact that I am normally out of touch with my emotions as of the past few years because it was such a stark contrast. Being that my only "enlightenment" was that single revelation I would definitely not say it is the greatest thing in the world but not altogether bad either.

Yes, the amplification of emotions during a drug induced altered state can reveal how easy it is to lose oneself in automated emotional responses and reactions in dealing with others. People tend to follow only their feelings in most of their interactions with others. It may work out most of the time in normal situations, but being untrained in reason has obvious consequences when emotions get out of hand.

edit: To expand on this, being untrained in reason is the same as being an untrained animal. When we train a cat to use a litter box, we do so for a reason. We train ourselves to use toilets for a reason. But of course, the way of the world is to train ourselves in reason only in specific areas of our lives, like work or school (strictly out of necessity), and then allow our consciousness to dissolve in the comfort of animalistic pleasures as much as we possibly can. In doing things this way we train ourselves in reason only in service to our animalistic selves. But to thoroughly and completely train ourselves in reason in every aspect of our being and lives? Such a thing strikes great fear into the hearts of most people, because it would mean the elimination of our emotional selves. And for what reason do we protect this 'self'? None other than for emotion itself, in the form of emotional attachment. This is egotism.

But can it be done, the elimination of the emotional self through resoning? Because otherwise it is another way of preserving emotions.

If emotions are, for example, things to which logic cannot be applied to a full extent.

Emotions are all deeply connected to our social self, our investments, expectations and roles that comprise our social being. In my view all emotions are social emotions and separate from feelings. Emotions are not based "in here" but "out there". It's not that reasoning could eliminate or suppress emotion but reasoning could help de-investing in the social economy and with that you stop needing its coinage and you can now finally go "broke".

The common myth "reason vs emotion" stems from the simple fact that people fully engaged in thought, for example a very dedicated scientist, will often have less social activity and investment going on. It's not his thinking which inhibits emotion but lack of interest and experience in the social game. Another example is the autistic type which is not tuned into the social world simply because of a dysfunction. But since the rest of his mind is working well he could end up looking highly intellectual but more as an effect of being busy with that most of his time and not engaging the social.

This way of looking at things solves any conceptual problems stemming from the popular notion of reasoning vs the emotional.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Emotions are all deeply connected to our social self, our investments, expectations and roles that comprise our social being. In my view all emotions are social emotions and separate from feelings. Emotions are not based "in here" but "out there". It's not that reasoning could eliminate or suppress emotion but reasoning could help de-investing in the social economy and with that you stop needing its coinage and you can now finally go "broke".

By "emotional self" I mean the ego, which is basically the human 'decision maker' based on and emerged from emotions.

The common myth "reason vs emotion" stems from the simple fact that people fully engaged in thought, for example a very dedicated scientist, will often have less social activity and investment going on. It's not his thinking which inhibits emotion but lack of interest and experience in the social game. Another example is the autistic type which is not tuned into the social world simply because of a dysfunction. But since the rest of his mind is working well he could end up looking highly intellectual but more as an effect of being busy with that most of his time and not engaging the social.

Yet these people are still not wise to the degree that emotions run their lives. For example, the dedicated scientist may be driven by the desire for success, leading to countless hours in the lab working desperately in hope to find some fulfillment. The autistic type could be driven by the insecurity of exposing his limitations to his peers in trying to appear smart. In this case, neither man know the illusionary nature of 'success' and 'insecurities'.

I'm not saying wisdom entails doing away with emotion all together, just that part of us that uses emotion as the basis for our actions. Egotism.

Russell wrote:By "emotional self" I mean the ego, which is basically the human 'decision maker' based on and emerged from emotions.

Understood. It has possibly a lot to do with the image we hold of some "position" related to others. For example if someone thinks of himself as being super smart or very experienced while then being told by a younger, uneducated or mediocre intellect that he's wrong will invoke the egotistical emotion of "offense". Not because of content (which might be silly but it's not the point yet) but because of the other stepping over some previously established "boundary" or role and this will color the rest of perception, creating immense bias to the point of possibly missing the whole point initially made. Same goes for betrayals, jealousy, ressentiment, resentment and so on. The ego as decision maker is mainly active in the social scene anyway. Most other decisions are not that hard and might even require less raw brain power. But that's speculation.

]Yet these people are still not wise to the degree that emotions run their lives. For example, the dedicated scientist may be driven by the desire for success...

True enough. Perhaps we can say that they are not prepared to deal with the few instances where navigation of the social scene is important. Or at least they would be hardly aware of the pitfalls. For example the autistic is suffering in a social setting because he cannot engage even if he'd like to function in that space. It becomes bewildering [fear of rejection might still be at work] and he retreats. But that's no insight yet! The scientist is an example where the emotions would still function in a cold and hard way (ruthless indeed) where the ladder game still is present: the acknowledgments, preventing losing face, the accolades and such. The reason he might seem unemotional to an observer is more about a mistake of the observer: looking for signs of emotion shown or particular kinds. But yes, appearances might deceive here as well, the emotions are not signs but functions: they can best be derived from actions in the scene than just isolated words or faces. Especially they are not just "feelings"; emotions could even be seen as functioning just as well without them when the broader implications are taken into account.

Russell wrote: To expand on this, being untrained in reason is the same as being an untrained animal. When we train a cat to use a litter box, we do so for a reason. We train ourselves to use toilets for a reason. But of course, the way of the world is to train ourselves in reason only in specific areas of our lives, like work or school (strictly out of necessity), and then allow our consciousness to dissolve in the comfort of animalistic pleasures as much as we possibly can. In doing things this way we train ourselves in reason only in service to our animalistic selves. But to thoroughly and completely train ourselves in reason in every aspect of our being and lives? Such a thing strikes great fear into the hearts of most people, because it would mean the elimination of our emotional selves. And for what reason do we protect this 'self'? None other than for emotion itself, in the form of emotional attachment. This is egotism.

I would agree with Diebert van Rhijn to some degree in that it's a myth of reason vs emotion. I think that the two can and should actually work together. If you have a strong emotional investment in the long term well being of yourself then you should likely have an emotional investment in the long term well being of your environment. Emotional reactions to threats to yourself and your environment can stimulate thought processes to deal with them. If you have no emotions whatsoever about yourself or those around you then it's highly likely that you won't take action. I have experienced this kind of extreme apathy in depression and likewise felt the opposite reaction during times of mental health and passion.

I would agree with Diebert van Rhijn to some degree in that it's a myth of reason vs emotion

classic case of unnecessary over-conceptualisation.

look back over your past and you will 'see' a person running amok with 'emotivity'.
tossed about like a rag doll.
a veritable fuckwit to be honest.

'getting' that would be a pure intellectual comprehension.

Orenholt wrote:
I would agree with Diebert van Rhijn to some degree in that it's a myth of reason vs emotion. I think that the two can and should actually work together. If you have a strong emotional investment in the long term well being of yourself then you should likely have an emotional investment in the long term well being of your environment. Emotional reactions to threats to yourself and your environment can stimulate thought processes to deal with them. If you have no emotions whatsoever about yourself or those around you then it's highly likely that you won't take action. I have experienced this kind of extreme apathy in depression and likewise felt the opposite reaction during times of mental health and passion.

Just to make myself clear, I was addressing the myth that emotions themselves could be a target or opposite of reason. But as I define them they do interfere with reasoning, simply by shifting priorities away from reasoning about existence and limit it to earning money, fame or solving some fantastic puzzle. Mostly harmless stuff -- it doesn't threaten the emotional goal or attachment that way ever!

The blunted affect or even anhedonia which is associated with depression is another thing altogether. This is a shutdown of brain capacity as a whole because of whatever reason which will show itself most commonly in decrease of all responses, basically suspension of important parts of the brain and not just of the emotional. In my opinion it's wrongly associated with emotions. Actually I believe certain strong emotions actually can lead to the various situations called disorders as they disorder the capacities which for most people would include processing of social life including the emotions that come with that. Ironically it's the same exaggerated "social life" often driving people to their extreme state, as Sartre famously declared: "Hell is the Other". Or more accurately: so much suffering lies in our confusion dealing with the complexities and inanities of even the simples relationships of the social that it we can only be lucky it does not drive us insane every day. The coping mechanism I'd call emotion.

If emotions (as distinct from "feelings") cannot be transcended, then there is no such thing as enlightenment. This is made necessary by the fact that emotions arise from a place of delusion (regarding the nature of the self and its relationship to Reality), and enlightenment is the absence of such.

Orenholt wrote:I would agree with Diebert van Rhijn to some degree in that it's a myth of reason vs emotion. I think that the two can and should actually work together. If you have a strong emotional investment in the long term well being of yourself then you should likely have an emotional investment in the long term well being of your environment.

I would only agree as far as that someone who is ignorant of the nature of reality might benefit from being emotionally invested in oneself in a positive way. Unfortunately, relying on an emotional investment alone is unstable and can lead to becoming lost in the unconscious, uncontrollable fluctuations of emotions. If a highly spiritual consciousness is the goal, reasoning one's way into perfect understanding is the only way to truly alleviate oneself from such dangers.

If you have no emotions whatsoever about yourself or those around you then it's highly likely that you won't take action. I have experienced this kind of extreme apathy in depression and likewise felt the opposite reaction during times of mental health and passion.

Yes but you just described depression as an 'extreme apathy'. Basically, depression is an overpowering emotion that over-rules and suppresses the emotions normally felt in a non-depressed state. Therefore the ego (which manifests itself as an emotional self) is still very much in place. Anyone who philosophizes themselves into depression (e.g. by way of nihilism) don't understand that they are just trading one emotional state for another.

If one were to gain an accurate perspective of what the self is from all sides and angles, the belief in the self (and any emotional investment in it) would wane and disappear.

Dan brings up an important point. Feelings (e.g. experiencing a threat to oneself or one's environment) and emotions (e.g. living in fear of potential threat) are two separate things and their differences should be noted.

"Feelings" encompass a range of psychological phenomena that aren't necessarily delusional in nature. Feelings in this sense are a kind of proto-thought or proto-reason that includes intuitions of various kinds - such as a feeling of impending danger, as Russell suggests. Such things don't constitute delusional dynamics till such time as the ego is ignited. Then what we call "emotions" burst forth in all their wondrous glory and that proto-reason never reaches the status of anything actually rational.

Well, it's clear you have to 'get' yourself as machinery.

Mind is thinking/emotion/sensation/intuition
each in proportion to nature/nurture.

It's stoopid to think 'I' have suicidal thoughts.
the machinery has suicidal thoughts.

the machinery has good reason to have suicidal thoughts because it's fucking up consistently and feels miserable.

The fact that people have started over the ages to internalize emotions and associate them with "deeper" feelings has confused the topic in my opinion quite a bit. The emotion only exists in relation to another, which in most cases is a person or a memory, perhaps even a projection of a person. Since people also personalize things these days, also here we see the emotional connections. But most things only become personal because of the status they supply or memory of people and status they might invoke. Therefore I make the claim that emotion as well as attachment is a predominantly social phenomenon at heart. Only in a society were social bonds have weakened one sees more attachments to things and places or images of things and places.

To deal with emotion and attachment one needs to start redefining the "other" fundamentally. As soon as one starts defining ones relationship to another, a process arises to maintain that order. Very primitively this is protection of family or tribe against dissolving. But the social has become so complex that nowadays we are often busy protecting a mostly imaginary social self -- ego -- against our own doubts above all. See there, the emotional creature is born!

People are often thinking things like "What is it I actually want?", unaware that they are no person. They try and satisfy such misunderstandings giving the problem reality and making the situation worse, chasing, chasing after nothing. All because they never think to try just sitting there once in a while, they constantly distract the mind from boredom, the average person keeps moving from one distraction to the next, lest they are forced to confront themselves, a whole life could be spent like this.

What drugs induce is a change in perspective. So "enlightenment" could be the feeling of having no emotions?

Bobo wrote:What drugs induce is a change in perspective. So "enlightenment" could be the feeling of having no emotions?

It's not possible to "feel" any emotion by itself since an emotion does not equal the feeling. What one could feel are feelings which might rise or not when an emotion is invoked. But emotions are more like patterns, they could even be "stored" for example in muscular memory like with a trauma or underlying tension. One only finds out it's there because of its effect, which might be feelings but just as well actions. This is easiest to see in the extreme behavior of a so-called "emotionless" mass murderer. Truth is he acts highly emotional but might still feel zero during his act - that actually enables him to do it. The emotion is purely stuck in the motion and motivation here. I think it's very important to realize this when talking about addressing emotions. Otherwise one is hunting down the wrong path and ignoring possibly huge beams stuck in ones own eye.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's not possible to "feel" any emotion by itself since an emotion does not equal the feeling. What one could feel are feelings which might rise or not when an emotion is invoked. But emotions are more like patterns, they could even be "stored" for example in muscular memory like with a trauma or underlying tension. One only finds out it's there because of its effect, which might be feelings but just as well actions. This is easiest to see in the extreme behavior of a so-called "emotionless" mass murderer. Truth is he acts highly emotional but might still feel zero during his act - that actually enables him to do it. The emotion is purely stuck in the motion and motivation here. I think it's very important to realize this when talking about addressing emotions. Otherwise one is hunting down the wrong path and ignoring possibly huge beams stuck in ones own eye.

In addition to the above, I think it's really important to understand the lack of conflict between feeling and thought. Thinking does not in any way inhibit feeling or disconnects "from feelings". That's a myth perpetuated alot by people who do not understand why they do what they're doing, tied to a flawed body of culture. There's no base in experience or science for it unless one confuses the terms first. The reverse is closer to the truth: feelings enable thoughts, like its substratum. All sensing and experiencing leads to the formation of thought. The more open and sensitive the inputs, the better and more intricate and "fleshed out" thoughts are allowed to become.

The inhibition or "disconnect" belongs purely to the domain of the emotional. Emotions stem from a "block", or a "knot" by its very essence. A pattern of behavior and response, fortifies by repetition, ritual and ignorance. The most obvious manifestation of attachment. This is why in Buddhism the idea of "unbinding" is discussed: unraveling the knots. The knots also of your thoughts as much as they are serving to perpetuate or defend the emotion: thereby blocking most other thoughts in the process.

Again, nobody ever got blocked or isolated from feeling by too much thought. The emotion is the block and thoughts and feelings group around them as defense when challenged. It's entirely possible to have emotion in place without a thought or feeling in sight (like ignorance). Apart from a literal shock only inquiry can start to pick the defenses apart. Since emotion based thought blocks any further development of thinking, it can be challenged by the intellect if dedicated to a principle like truth. The thoughts themselves won't set anyone free but it might give one a clue about the situation this self is in: the social self, the emotional self: the mini-me meep meep.

....In other words, emotions are deluded(incomplete) thoughts. That said, certain feelings cannot arise without certain emotions, so when those emotions are gone, those feelings will too. For example, a person who doesn't have emotions won't feel proud when someone praises him.

jupiviv wrote:....In other words, emotions are deluded(incomplete) thoughts. That said, certain feelings cannot arise without certain emotions, so when those emotions are gone, those feelings will too. For example, a person who doesn't have emotions won't feel proud when someone praises him.

There's something to say for calling emotions "delusions" or "ignorance" although that might make it all a bit too generic. With the more or less understood idea of emotion at least there's something more to work with. The way I present this is more about how certain thoughts and feelings can surround the emotion, lets say becoming its servants. Like "pride" would be the prime emotion or edifice or perhaps also connected emotional states like "offense" or "humiliation". But still one step further, pride is connected to a perceived status in relation to others. Otherwise it's a feeling of contentment which can still arise after doing a job right for example which is only very loosely "taking pride into something". But here language fools us.

If emotion would be a tomb then thoughts are like bricks and beams and feelings are like rock and metal. But to open the tomb up sometimes heavy well crafted equipment is needed. The emotion manifests like a "superstructure" while incomplete thoughts are just henids. That said, emotions can engage very deep lying processes and some people therefore perceive of them as "deeper" than feeling. But I believe this is the wrong way to conceive of them: their base lies completely elsewhere, more in what manifest as common shared space, where the "other" functions and our attachments appear.

Russell wrote:Yes but you just described depression as an 'extreme apathy'. Basically, depression is an overpowering emotion that over-rules and suppresses the emotions normally felt in a non-depressed state. Therefore the ego (which manifests itself as an emotional self) is still very much in place. Anyone who philosophizes themselves into depression (e.g. by way of nihilism) don't understand that they are just trading one emotional state for another.

If one were to gain an accurate perspective of what the self is from all sides and angles, the belief in the self (and any emotional investment in it) would wane and disappear.

You may have a point there but I have a hard time comprehending how having a healthy desire for doing things could exist without emotion. It seems to me that all desire for any action comes from an emotional place other than the basic physical feelings like hunger or sleepiness. How would you know what to do if you didn't have any particular feeling about what the options are?