On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:15:06 -0700, Jim Clark wrote:
Hi
The impact of drugs on mystical experiences would appear to be
congenial with a naturalistic explanation for such experiences. But
how would people who believe such experiences occur naturally
due to supernatural events explain them? Indeed, isn't it somewhat
paradoxical for people (the subjects) to believe that they have had
some spiritual insight artificially induced by a chemical? Or is it just
the "experience" that matters, not some rational interpretation,
religious or otherwise?
First, I think that the issues you raise open up a can of worms that
is hard to finish (even frying the worms won't help much) because
it involves so many different controversial issues in religion, science,
and one's subjective interpretation of reality.
Second, religions that use "Entheogens", substances that induce a
"mystical/religious state" (NOTE: what this "state" is appears to depend
upon the religion), typically have an explanation for why the entheogen,
like the use of psilocybin in Mexican Indian groups, are used and
why that use is important. For more on Entheogens, see the Wikipedia
entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen
and also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_herbs
For more on the history of Psilocybin see the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin
In such religions, I believe, there is no conflict because there is
an explanation -- either natural or supernatural -- within the religion
that identifies why the use of the substance is justified and why
it produces its effects. Translating such an explanation into
scientific terms may or may not be possible because of what
Kuhn calls "incommensurability", that is, the elements of the
religious explanation do not map onto the scientific explanation;
for more on this point, see the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions#Incommensurability
A comparable problem exists when translating from one language
into another, especially if one text is relying on abstract and culture
bound concepts. Back in the 19th century when U.S. citizens
went to Germany to get their Ph.D.s in psychology, they would
attempt to translate the German texts into English but a number
of German concepts would be "slippery" or difficult to specify,
possibly because there was no corresponding concept in English
speaking culture or, uncharitably, the original German concept
was intentionally vague and was meant to be confusing because
the author really did not understand what they were writing about
or were simply confused about the matter. Does one spend (waste?)
time trying to figure out what the hell the original author had to say
or does one take the best understanding one can get from a text
and work from that?
In terms of entheogens, should one say:
(1) Gee, the early Amerindians must have had a good knowledge of
neurochemistry because of their experience with entheogens and their
established rituals that allowed to induce mystical states,
or,
(2) Gee, scientists trying to reduce mystical experiences to the operation
of neurochemicals miss the point of using the substances and the religious
warrant for their use -- the explanation for the use of those substances
and the states they induce is based on supernatural factors and forces that
science ignores or can't understand.
Which explanation does one accept? Does it depend upon which group
one considers themselves to be a member of (i.e., scientists, Indian group,
etc.)? Which framework will we consider appropriate for discussing
these issues?
NOTE: the "Abrahamic religions", that is Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam, typically eschew the use of entheogens though alcohol
is used by Judaism and Christianity (though not to induce "mystical"
states) though, historically, certain groups within these religions have
use entheogens is an attempt to achieve a "mystical" state. For more
on this point see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen#Judaism_and_Christianity
Third, note that the Abrahamic religions recognize "mystical" states
such as a state of "grace" or "ecstasy" that can arise from prayer,
meditation, activities (e.g., doing good works), singing/chanting,
dancing (e.g., the "whirling dervishes" of the Sufi sect of Islam; see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirling_Dervishes
But there is a fundamental question here:
Are the states of "grace" or "ecstasy" or "profound insight" or other
mystical experience granted to a person by a supernatural source by
whatever supernatural processes are assumed to exist (NOTE:
the great thing about being a supernatural religion is that the rules
and laws of ordinary nature can be overruled, so the experience
of "ecstasy" does not have to be based on the activity of the
nervous system or other biological system -- it may all be due
to activity in the "soul").
If one has the view "God/Supreme Being/etc is All Powerful",
then he/she/it can do anything they want even if it violates establish
scientific laws (e.g., stopping the rotation of the earth as well as
preventing momentum from ripping off the surface when it stops).
From this perspective, mystical states may be a gift from God/etc
or a manifestation of the activity of the soul which is not limited
to physical reality. There is no need to seek a mundane scientific
explanation because, you know, all things are possible with God/etc.
If one has the view that "God/etc has to obey the laws of physical
reality", then the experience of mystical states HAS to be due to
factors/processes in the nervous system.
So, how is one to interpret the nature of experience one has after
taking a hit of psilocybin or LSD or some other psychoactive substance?
The "God/etc is Supreme" position might be that only God can
induce a state of grace or ecstasy or profound knowledge or whatever.
The drug may give one an experience that is in some ways comparable
but, consider: is there a difference in experience watching the rock
band "The Beatles" play versus watching a cover band in, say,
"Bealemania"? Is the experience the same or different? This is one
question that researchers back in the 1950s-1970s tried to answer
by comparing the experience one had on a drug with that one had
more "naturally", as through meditation, or some other process.
Was it real or was it Memorex? I don't think a clear conclusion was
ever achieved.
The "God/etc has to obey the laws of physics" position would quite
comfortably explain that mystical states are COMPLETELY explained
by the underlying neurophysiology, cognitive processes, emotionality,
and social context and support one receives. This, I think, is the
predominant scientific position and, I believe, were the original views
of researchers like Leary, Cohen, and so on. But some of these
guys seemed to go over to the "other side" because they believed that
mere materialism could not explain their experience (the notion that
hallucinogenics might have altered their brain functioning so much that
they could no longer serve as competent self-observers doesn't seem
to have occurred to these folks).
So, as in many things: (a) life/reality is complicated, (b) one has to
choose sides and stick to it (or not), and (c) because we don't have
complete knowledge about a phenomenon, it is likely that our account
of a phenomenon is flawed or completely wrong but we are left to
defend it, especially if we've devoted a lot of time, effort, and money
doing research on the phenomenon, we might be left arguing for
positions/explanations that are just terribly wrong and may be rejected
by the judgment of history.
But that's the life we've chosen, right? That's the game we've
decided to play.
-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24636
or send a blank email to
leave-24636-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
