From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 15:06:07 BST
Platt,
> > > > So to answer your question, I do belive that "small self" egos are bad
> > > > and ought to be dissolved.
> > >
> > > Platt:
> > > Disagree. Small self is required to make the "big self" meaningful, just
> > > as you can't conceive of the one without the many, or large without
> > > small.
> > Mike:
> > Isn't that like arguing that you can't make a value judgement between
> > any pair of opposites? You might as well be saying that conservatism
> > is no better than liberalism, simply because they contrast :D
> Platt:
> If you "dissolve" liberalism there would be no need for conservatism. You
> need the opposites in order to make a value judgment. In fact, without
> opposites there would be nothing to judge.
Mike:
And so you value liberalism equally to conservatism, because without
liberalism there is no conservatism? Sorry Platt, but you've totally
lost me here.
> > > Platt:
> > > Hmmm. I wonder why, if drugs are so useful, why Pirsig wrote: "Things
> > > like sex and booze and drugs and- tobacco have a high biological quality,
> > > that is, they feel good, but are harmful for social reasons. They take
> > > all your money. They break up your family. They threaten the stability of
> > > the community."
> >
> > Mike:
> > I think that quote is very insightful up to a point - up to the point
> > where Pirsig lumps all drugs together - together with sex, booze and
> > tobacco, which were all good examples. The best examples are the most
> > addictive and most expensive drugs, like heroin and cocaine. They take all
> > your money. They break up your family. In addition, they fuel organised
> > crime. All low social quality.
> >
> > Now, move along the scale to tobacco and booze. The same problems are
> > there, to a lesser degree (at least, tobacco certainly doesn't break
> > up families like heroin or, yes, booze can), except their legality
> > removes the organised crime problem. However, there are clear
> > social-level benefits that balance the social-level problems, to some
> > degree. In moderation, a couple of drinks can be extremely beneficial
> > on the social level.
> >
> > In fact, the more I think about it, the less enchanted I am about the
> > Pirsig quote you gave. It's abundantly clear that the low quality of
> > tobacco and booze is spread over the biological and social levels.
> > Lung cancer? Liver failure? Likewise, the benefits of booze are spread over
> > the biological and social levels. Yes, they "feel good", but the good
> > feeling isn't merely a biological sensation; it can also be an improved
> > connection with your friends. It's notable that these benefits tend to
> > disappear when moderation is abandoned.
> >
> > It only remains for me to assert that psychedelics can have enormous
> > social-level benefits.
>
> Platt:
> Many people have given up smoking because it's considered anti-social.
> Same goes for hard liquor, wine being the more socially acceptable.
> Psychedelics had their day in the 60's. They are no longer considered the
> "in" thing to do. So I'm not convinced they have enormous social benefits.
> The fallout from their widespread use in the 60's indicates the opposite.
Mike:
So do you deny that booze in moderation has some social level benefit,
and doesn't merely "feel good" on the biological level?
And do you consider that something must be fashionable ("the 'in'
thing to do") in order to have social level benefit?
If the answer to these is "no", your arguments were irrelevant to the
point I was trying to make, namely that the pros and cons of drug use
are both spread over the social and biological levels.
> > > Platt:
> > > Anyway, hard
> > > to prove one way or another that drug-induced reality is the "real"
> > > reality, nor that it's much different than the experience of "born again"
> > > which is usually obtained without the aid of drugs.
> >
> > Mike:
> > Your love of Pirsig and your scare quotes around "real" show that you
> > know perfectly well that there is no single "real" reality.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "scare quotes." As for a single "real"
> reality, Pirsig claims there is -- Quality.
Mike:
Scare quotes are those things you put around the word "real" (those
things I just used), to indicate that you consider it a dubious
concept. Of course, by "no single real reality" I meant "no single
OBJECTIVE reality". I thought that was what you meant by "real" too.
So let me amend my statement:
Your love of Pirsig and your scare quotes around "real" (you wrote:
"Anyway, hard
to prove one way or another that drug-induced reality is the "real"
reality") show that you know perfectly well that there is no single
objective reality. I would never claim that the psychedelic experience
is "more real" than straight experience, because it's a meaningless
claim. Reality (as Quality) is the sum total of actual and potential
awareness/consciousness. I won't rub your face in the implications
that has for psychedelic use.
Incidentally, I'd appreciate it if you didn't cut sentences out of my
writing when you insert your replies, without indicating this with
"<snip>" or something similar.
Regards,
Mike
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 25 2005 - 16:25:41 BST