Alcohol Made me an Atheist

[Lanny]

Well not really, but a recent combination of semi-perpetual low grade drunk and shitty emo would have convinced me had I not already elected not to believe in any sort of god. What I'm interested in is how/if we can export ideas, and specifically ideas about the divine, from intoxicated states into a general and rigorous system of beliefs.

In the past I've been pretty dismissive of drug induced religious/philosophical experiences, and in truth still am. But the process of having a subjectively profound experience that I, in a non-intoxicated state, would deem valid or "truthful" (or at least yielding motivation to hold a view I think true) makes me wonder if there's a systematic way of separating "high ideas" like "gravy on waffles sounds fucking good" from legitimate insights we can draw from in forming worldviews.

It seems obvious to me that a system of demarcation is necessary (assuming we want to admit ANY idea gleaned from an altered state) because we all know we're capable of generating some truly stupid ideas under the effects of various substances (I've woken up with really atrocious poetry written on napkins stuffed in my pocket). The temptation, and I suspect the opinion I'll end up holding, is to say that altered states may be a source of inspiration for rational thought but ultimately we can draw nothing more than "food for thought" from these experiences. This is a somewhat weaker position than would be the case in an ideal world, I think we'd all really like to say that experiences which are subjectively profound indicate actual truth in some greater sense than just motivating serious inquiry but I don't think we can take a stronger stance than that without admitting contradictory or batty experiences as somehow indicative of truth.

What do you guys think? I remember a time when Terence Mckenna, or at least his ideas, had a majority following on &T and that would certainly predispose someone to give a specific kind of answer. I think the user base has become somewhat more cynical in the intervening years but I suspect at least someone is going to champion a more radical view than myself.

[mmmmmmmQuestions]

everyone needs to use more mind-altering chemicals, become their own God, and fuck the rest.

[Zanick]

I don't think drug induced revelations always come in the form of external knowledge. Sometimes it's not something you didn't know already, you just get in touch with a part of yourself on a level you weren't familiar with before, and this can put things into perspective in a way that makes it look like a new side of you. We expect to be made believers, swayed by ultimate truths of the universe spoken in American-English and meant for literal interpretation, but this can unfortunately render us blind to real, spiritual transformation as it's occurring.

[John Smith]

Why should it be treated any differently than data produced in a sober state? If you can convey it it can be subject to the same analysis as anything else. I don't see what the problem is, except when you can't convey something and most people worth talking to are unlikely to be able to relate or understand, even if they have experienced altered states. You're going to be trapped within your mind forever questioning your sanity, Lannafred. It happened to Ate.

[Lanny]

I don't think drug induced revelations always come in the form of external knowledge. Sometimes it's not something you didn't know already, you just get in touch with a part of yourself on a level you weren't familiar with before, and this can put things into perspective in a way that makes it look like a new side of you. We expect to be made believers, swayed by ultimate truths of the universe spoken in American-English and meant for literal interpretation, but this can unfortunately render us blind to real, spiritual transformation as it's occurring.

I agree, I totally think that different states can teach us something about ourselves, or motivate us. I remember talking about the ontological argument with this philosophy student and I was arguing against it and this dude pointed out something interesting. He said than Anselm himself didn't really think it was a valid argument, or at least he admitted his belief in god didn't depend on the argument. He said the point was to kind of hype up the faithful, and appreciate that god made a world where you could form this clever argument for his existence. And that's kind of what I think we can say about profound experiences in altered states, like we can definitely affirm our beliefs, or introspect, or appreciate something beautiful.

Why should it be treated any differently than data produced in a sober state? If you can convey it it can be subject to the same analysis as anything else.

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.

[John Smith]

Lanny, you are a horribly boring person.

[Lanny]

I can agree with that

[FON]

It seems obvious to me that a system of demarcation is necessary (assuming we want to admit ANY idea gleaned from an altered state) because we all know we're capable of generating some truly stupid ideas under the effects of various substances (I've woken up with really atrocious poetry written on napkins stuffed in my pocket). The temptation, and I suspect the opinion I'll end up holding, is to say that altered states may be a source of inspiration for rational thought but ultimately we can draw nothing more than "food for thought" from these experiences. This is a somewhat weaker position than would be the case in an ideal world, I think we'd all really like to say that experiences which are subjectively profound indicate actual truth in some greater sense than just motivating serious inquiry but I don't think we can take a stronger stance than that without admitting contradictory or batty experiences as somehow indicative of truth.

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.

I don't think drug induced revelations always come in the form of external knowledge. Sometimes it's not something you didn't know already, you just get in touch with a part of yourself on a level you weren't familiar with before, and this can put things into perspective in a way that makes it look like a new side of you. We expect to be made believers, swayed by ultimate truths of the universe spoken in American-English and meant for literal interpretation, but this can unfortunately render us blind to real, spiritual transformation as it's occurring.

I agree, I totally think that different states can teach us something about ourselves, or motivate us. I remember talking about the ontological argument with this philosophy student and I was arguing against it and this dude pointed out something interesting. He said than Anselm himself didn't really think it was a valid argument, or at least he admitted his belief in god didn't depend on the argument. He said the point was to kind of hype up the faithful, and appreciate that god made a world where you could form this clever argument for his existence. And that's kind of what I think we can say about profound experiences in altered states, like we can definitely affirm our beliefs, or introspect, or appreciate something beautiful.

Why should it be treated any differently than data produced in a sober state? If you can convey it it can be subject to the same analysis as anything else.

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.

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.

[millionsofdeadcats]

everyone needs to use more mind-altering chemicals, become their own God, and fuck the rest.

Most of the people here can barely take care of themselves, let alone 'become their own god'.  I am sure adding drugs to the whole thing will help.

[Splam]

More people report spiritual experiences on alcohol than on placebo. Seems like you simply had an atheist spiritualist experience.

[John Smith]

I've got friends with all sorts of dubious beliefs and ideas that seemed to stem from accepting their drug experiences as truths.

People develop moronic beliefs even when sober. Look at polls done to gauge the beliefs of the average person.

The sad reality is that the majority of people simply lack the foundation of a proper logical thought process and general intelligence to come to sound conclusions, along with a variety of other traits.

Anyway, Lanny, if you want to delve into this look into this reading list I made. "The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide" should have been in there as well. There's some fascinating information in here. https://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=4700414&postcount=1683

[Ragus]

Good example: Armsmerchant

[FON]

I've got friends with all sorts of dubious beliefs and ideas that seemed to stem from accepting their drug experiences as truths.

People develop moronic beliefs even when sober. Look at polls done to gauge the beliefs of the average person.

The sad reality is that the majority of people simply lack the foundation of a proper logical thought process and general intelligence to come to sound conclusions, along with a variety of other traits.

Anyway, Lanny, if you want to delve into this look into this reading list I made. "The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide" should have been in there as well. There's some fascinating information in here. https://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=4700414&postcount=1683

True, I could have worded that better. These aren't your typical beliefs. It's all that acid, metaphysical, reptilian, new age shit, which seems to be largely a result of too much drugs. The point being that accepting drug experiences as truth can lead to extremely irrational beliefs. Sobriety can as well, sure, but we are less impressionable and in a better state to think and evaluate when not caught in the midst of an acid trip.

[victimthrax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hglVqACd1C8

[Zanick]

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.