Well I have been high, and I have had spiritual experiences. They're different.

You need to admit the possibillity that you find this an affront because of your ideas of propriety and the perceived odium of drug use.

"The idea of mystical experiences resulting from drug use is not readily accepted in Western societies"

Nobody has yet to answer these two questions that I initially raised, aside from relating personal anecdotes about their own use of drugs or their own spiritual experiences. Those responses do not cut it, and I am still interested in actually coming up with some set rules for qualifying something as a "spiritual experience", and for associating at least the tryptamine derivatives (psilocybin and DMT), if not other psychedelic drugs, with this spiritual experience. :brickwall:

There are no set rules. And that's the point - spirituality is a personal experience, an experience that can (and must, in my opinion) only be evaluated by the one experiencing. If I sincerely stated I had a "spiritual experience" while taking a ****, what evidence or justification do you have to tell me I'm lying? You're absolutely right: "Spiritual experience" is not defined, as there are no ontological properties with which to evaluate. We're just playing with cards here.

Once again, I'm not saying someone can't come to a "spiritual experience" and/or that experience can't be worthwhile and the whole laundry list of *good* things perceived from it. On the contrary, I'm saying people can and do, and I'm sure many are fulfilled from partaking, but to attempt to prove or disprove the proposition stated above is pointless (unless we come to some mutual understanding -- which is very difficult when we speak of "spirituality").

The terms "religious experience," "mystical experience," and "cosmic consciousness" are all too vague and comprehensive to denote that specific mode of consciousness which, to those who have known it, is as real and overwhelming as falling in love. This article describes such states of consciousness induced by psychedelic drugs, although they are virtually indistinguishable from genuine mystical experience.

...

I am trying to delineate the basic principles of psychedelic awareness. But I must add that I can speak only for myself. The quality of these experiences depends considerably upon one's prior orientation and attitude to life, although the now voluminous descriptive literature of these experiences accords quite remarkably with my own.

This is why I initially posted what I did; I found the article to be problematic; vague, overreaching, and without a real thesis. It reads like a conglomeration of a report, and an opinion piece/political essay. No wonder there is confusion in this thread over what exactly we are attempting to debate here...

How do we define a spiritual experience? How do we know that drinking isn't just as spiritual as mushroom eating?

All of the confusion appears to come from a couple of participants who seem to know little about either using psychedelics for spiritual pursuits, or the mystical experience. I contributed to this thread because I've both done psychedelics (many years ago), and I have practiced meditation daily for 35 years. As I intimated on the first page of this thread, it was peyote specifically that got me wondering if I could achieve that experience without the drug. Now, thousands of hours of meditation later, I can confidently say it is not only possible to naturally achieve the peyote "high," but one can surpass it.

Your contributions, however, are another story. It does no good to post mere skepticism in a thread if you have no experience to draw from. To have a strong objective opinion, you have to first show your own expertise, along with what you've studied, and then specifically counter claims or points made. I emphasized "objective" because you are certainly entitled to be against drug use, and refuse them for yourself. But in a philosophical discussion, we consider possibilities. In that setting only experienced opinions are allowed to be strong; inexperienced opinions need to tread lightly.

But too often these forums attract skeptics, and cynics, who frustratingly offer little more than to keep repeating "how do we know _____________ ?(fill in the blank)" It is soooooo easy to disrupt and derail any discussion like that. If you claim you breathe, all I have to do is say "how do you KNOW you breathe? Maybe you just think you breathe, maybe you are dreaming you breathe, maybe maybe maybe . . . ." From your room where you write you can't "prove" you breathe to me here in my room; so if I won't tentatively accept that you do for the sake of discussion, such doubt/skeptic tactics stop or sidetrack a discussion every time.

When one participates in someone's thread, he has to tentatively accept his theme; or, if rejecting it, he must list the reasons and experience that justifies rejection. It isn't enough to doubt, any fool can do that. If a participant can't give sound, evidence-supported reasons for his doubt, then he should back the heck off and let people who are interested explore the topic.

When one participates in someone's thread, he has to tentatively accept his theme; or, if rejecting it, he must list the reasons and experience that justifies rejection. It isn't enough to doubt, any fool can do that. If a participant can't give sound, evidence-supported reasons for his doubt, then he should back the heck off and let people who are interested explore the topic.

When one participates in someone's thread, he has to tentatively accept his theme

I think I have. The problem is that there was no argument made to begin with. No disrespect to Theaetetus because I like his posts, but he posts a lot of articles up here without giving any of his own ideas or arguments, which I would like to hear in response to the article. So when left without an argument, I post my reaction. That's what I did, same as you.

Congratulations... :flowers: Anything else you need to add here? This is supposed to be philosophy, not story time.



I'm not inexperienced. I think we already went through this. The problem with countering claims or points made here is that the original article didn't leave us with much to counter. It was an experience report and admitted that everything was entirely subjective.

I'm not going to just completely shift my opinion on "spirituality" and psychedelics simply because one person, namely you, comes on here with a nice report. That's great. But according to my own experience, and many accounts from others in the real world (that can be verified, and aren't just anonymous posts on the web), the "spiritual" aspect of the trip is likely yet another delusion created in your mind when you flood it with serotonin.



Right. Go ahead and continue the terrific discussion that was going on here, I wasn't aware that we had one. This thread was totally dead before even going one page, until it was revived with yet another experience report, after you thought it fit to give yours. So, go ahead with discussion, I won't be wasting time in this thread anymore anyway. As for the original article, I've stated my response on it clearly and my issues with it, as well as with everything else.



I think I have. The problem is that there was no argument made to begin with. No disrespect to Theaetetus because I like his posts, but he posts a lot of articles up here without giving any of his own ideas or arguments, which I would like to hear in response to the article. So when left without an argument, I post my reaction. That's what I did, same as you.

Anyway, continue on, uninterrupted, with the drug experience reports. Erowid will have a solid contender here on PF in no time! :a-ok:

It's not that anyone is doubting anything; it's further inquiry for clarification (the participant you quoted was not explicitly doubting anything). I don't believe you're understanding this, and for some reason take all critical questions (which you don't presume to be "sound") to be from the mouth of a 'stupid skeptic'. I've addressed this with you in past threads, but it doesn't seem you will even entertain questions I present because of your preconceived notions of 'who I am'.

Could it be you're incorrect in your analysis of the individual, and should consider giving them the respect of at least attempting clarification, instead of assuming they aren't worth it? Or won't you be fussed with that?

I understand perfectly what a fair, information-packed, properly reasoned response is. And I also can spot a harassing, picking-apart, skepticism-invoking debater from a mile away. You can always tell because all they ever do is pot shot and snipe. Wait for a fact-filled, studied, scholarly, charitable response and you'll die of starvation waiting for a tidbit of informed opinion.

What exactly do you know about mysticism? What exactly do you know about inner practice? What exactly do you know about using peyote in an attempt to achieve the mystical experience? Who have you studied? Where's the evidence of your scholarly study that you should have long ago shown us to prove your questions have merit?

Every word you and Pangloss have said here has been proof you know nothing about this subject; yet here you are picking, challenging, questioning to death any effort to get to a more enlightened discussion.

You've been trusted with moderatorship, so it must be that the administrators of this site agree with your approach. As someone who has studied, and still studies his butt off before discussing a subject, I personally find it discouraging.