Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Down the rabbit hole

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Bill, I understand where u r coming from, as u say u were involved in treating people who had bad experiences. My point was that someone treating people who
    Message 1 of 171 , Jan 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      I understand where u r coming from, as u say u were involved in treating people who had bad experiences. My point was that someone treating people who had accidents hunting, diving, playing football, basketball, boxing etc could make the same case for them also being potentially dangerous.Being alive is dangerous. I also agree that no one should be dosed unknowingly.From my observations, I have seen many more people with problems from alcohol, coke, crack, pharmecuticals etc than psychedelics. Incidentally, my experiences were not monitored. Leary maintained the biggest mistake people make is by tripping in the same surroundings and with same people, there is often a tendency to imprint even harder old imprints instead of imprinting a more empowering, joyous reality.Last night, I put Tim Leary in search and watched a video of him being interviewed on a couple of utubes.

      Peace,
      Tom
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: William
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 2:21 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Down the rabbit hole



      I saw another side of the psychodelic explosion. I set observing those who consuled and treated those with psychotic breaks and flashbacks from hard drugs. It was the end of many college terms as then you went to Nam. Wavy gravey and the haight crowd knew about bummers ,sitting in a cold shower fighting for your sanity is not a good program. I listened to the triped out ramblings of triped out kids. I sewed up the split lips and open alveolar sockets from evulsed teeth. The dead ones were just buried as none cared why they had jumped off a building or turned on the engine in a closed garage.
      It sounds like your expermentation was better monitored but what of those who were cubed and had no reason to know why they went mad. Indeed the minor psychodelics were less dangerous and hash hish and pot have shorter half lifes. I know a guy who tried to explode himself with cheetos. Freud and Carrol would have been very good heads and seemed at home with the minor psychodelics. That is probably a good place to draw the line. I cannot invision advising anyone to drop a tab. Bill





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jim
      Hi Polly, You write: Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates philosophy was to drink hemlock when
      Message 171 of 171 , Jan 28, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Polly,

        You write:

        "Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates' philosophy was to drink hemlock when push came to shove; all conceptual thinking notwithstanding."

        Yes, I completely agree with your first sentence. I certainly try to act in line with my philosophical views which combine elements of virtue ethics with existentialism.

        Socrates certainly lived his philosophy. He drank the hemlock as he argued that it was the just thing to do, rather than save his skin by escaping the death sentence passed on him by the Athenian Justice System.

        Unlike you, I have a very high opinion of Socrates who was courageous enough to speak out and act as he felt he should, even when it was dangerous for him to do so.

        In my last post to you, I wrote:

        "I am interested in the sort of questions Socrates asked. I am primarily interested in the two questions: "What am I?" and "How should I live?" I am certainly not interested in the question "What is a question?".

        You replied:

        "That's fine, of course. It does however mean you will not be able to come anywhere near Descartes or his method of doubt, or proceed beyond him. Or in other words, you are rather fond of your ideal, a priori world, and you fully intend to cling to it for dear life."

        I am not sure why you say that I have an "ideal, a priori world, and … fully intend to cling to it for dear life." My ethical views are a posteriori, as they are based on my experience of what actions and attitudes cause human beings either benefit or harm.

        I am not sure what "a priori" beliefs you are thinking of.

        You suggest that to be consistent with my own outlook, I need to put some time and effort investigating the question "What is a question?"

        However, I think if I did spend time studying this question, I would be guilty of the "armchair trivia" you rightly criticise above. Further, I have already said that I know what a question is. Why should I spend time and effort examining a phenomenon I already fully understand?

        Philosophy, in my view, is all about starting off with the things one knows, and trying to learn significant things one does not know, all the while applying one's knowledge in one's actions in the world.

        As I say above, I am not aware of clinging to unexamined attitudes and beliefs "for dear life", but if you and others think I am guilty of that so be it.

        It seems to me that you do not favour asking philosophical questions, nor trying to provide philosophical answers. Such conceptual activity only prevents the person from gaining uncluttered access to the real.

        You criticise Socrates, but surely you must criticise all philosophers (including all existentialists) for promoting the very thing you think is most harmful to human beings – conceptual thinking.

        Jim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.