Well like I said, we can definitely glean inspiration for rational inquiry from experiences with drugs (although perhaps the inquiry has to happen in a normal state), I don't think anyone contests that. The question is if the experience has independent value in indicating truth. Like Edros talked about amphetamines being a source of ideas for him, and obviously if anything can be externally true then his work mathematics was. But we only know that because his work has been validated by people we assume are trained and in a stable, sober state. Like at the point that he was amped up and had a personally profound mathematical experience or idea, before there was verification (even his own), is there any more reason to believe that a conjecture accompanied by this experience than one which wasn't? I mean it would be nice to live in a world where our intuitions and feelings under the influence of drugs align with reality more than they otherwise would.
I'll concede that drugs can cloud an otherwise clear mind, but at the same time I don't think rational thought is necessarily the singular path to liberation--in fact, I think sober evaluation can occasionally stand in the way. Hemingway is credited for having once said, "Write drunk, edit sober." I think there is a special truth here. When fully aroused, our critical minds can inhibit the flow of our creative energies.
Pretty much my thoughts on this. The outcome of accepting insights from drug induced experiences as more than just 'food for thought' can lead down the path to madness. At least with psychedelics. I've got friends with all sorts of dubious beliefs and ideas that seemed to stem from accepting their drug experiences as truths.
...
Drugs are deceptive by nature. Your shitty poetry, for instance, is a clear example of how drugs can make us think stupid ideas are actually great - a mistake we would be unlikely to make sober. For that reason I would tend to think that there is a greater reason to be skeptical of drug induced conjecture than sober conjecture. I can't imagine any way to gauge the truth value of a drug experience without some sort of sober reflection.
Why is shitty poetry a mistake? Lanny could write hundreds of shitty poems whilst intoxicated and if I read them all, finding a single one that I enjoyed, I'd be thankful for his alcoholism. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but aside from the decisions made in clearly poor judgment (i.e. fighting with others, stripping one's clothing from the body in public spaces, etc.) I think some of these failures are ones that our rational mind needs to be making more often. The shitty ideas won't be any smarter, but you might be a little wiser for having acted on them specifically because of the consequences. If it's psychedelics in question, I agree that a bit of critical thought post-trip will shave off the flabby bits.
Because he thought it was good poetry. I wasn't talking about whether we should be thankful for alcoholism because it can occasionally produce something good, I was arguing that as we are prone to making stupid mistakes when we are inebriated that we wouldn't make sober I think there is a legitimate reason to be more skeptical of drug induced conjecture than sober conjecture.
