Contradiction is socially disruptive, and ignored/policed quite thoroughly, denying access to Humans of pretty substantial portions of reality which is instead represented by illusory proxies/heuristics.
> For me contradictions are unavoidable when speaking about the mind.
"It (seems like it) is my opinion that {some opinion}" has very few ways of going wrong, and has the side benefit of reminding one that they're dealing with a subjective map, which is in part the goal of most authors of such pieces, imho anyways.
As much as I love the sentiment, these sorts of pieces (written or verbal) always contain contradictions, usually important ones relative to the claims.
Any idea if this is smart enough to show all new content from your subscriptions or does it only show the select choices that YouTube makes for you (another infuriating YouTube design choice).
Considering the context (planet Earth) and the history of "righteous" actions of the department of "defense" of the nation he hails from, I believe it to be at least debatable.
Now, one can say "No, that's wrong!", but that doesn't make it wrong, though it can certainly cause it to appear that way.
If Ted is bad for his body count of innocent people, then what of us?
> Yeah, kind of. It has an effect, that's undeniable, but whether that effect results in a therapeutic outcome or a bad trip or just a fun time is not due the chemical. It's not like e.g. aspirin for headaches (FWIW that's still pretty mysterious too, but at least it's consistent.)
Agreed, somewhat. It's not due just to the chemical.
BUT, it doesn't necessarily follow that:
> The result of taking psilocybin depends [primarily] on the "set and setting" (and a lot of other factors no doubt.)
Set and setting is undoubtedly important, and it's possible that they are paramount, but I see little evidence to believe this is the case and that similar (see above) results can be practically achieved with alternative approaches, and much that contradicts it. But to be clear, at a bare minimum one needs to be sitting in a quiet, (preferably) dark room, not at a rave. This much seems obviously true, and in line with what you're saying.
I think where we agree is that a certain state of mind MUST be achieved in order for the magic to occur. Where we differ is how (the various ways in which) that can be achieved, and to what degree, in reality (which for us to know, would require substantial study, that has yet to take place).
> Look this is weird for me to say but no, I object to the normalization of getting high as a way to treat depression. There are other methods that are effective and safe.
Agreed, if you word it like that, but I don't think that's a fair wording. Just "getting high" isn't the only option.
> One of the strange and frustrating things is that every kind of healing modality with which I have personal experience (including Reiki, Feldenkrais, NLP, EFT, hypnosis, and others), every one of them is somehow "unreproducible" by at least some mainstream scientists, to put it mildly
I intensely share your frustration with the excessively scientific materialist style of thinking that comes up with these "unreproducible therefore it's false pronouncements.
We need to get everything down on paper and start sorting it out, and then form opinions. And this applies to everything, not just psychedelics. If only people could figure out this incredibly simple idea.
You know, I wish more people were able to have reasonable conversations like you, imagine how wonderful the world could be if a way could be found to recognize and spread this character trait.
It didn't sound like that's what you were pointing out, at all.
"I believe it's important to realize that the "magic" is not in the mushroom."
"To sum up, the cure is not in the pill, it's in the set and setting. The pill just gives you an excuse."
This makes it sound like the mushroom is little more than a placebo.
> is too potent and can go wrong.
Potent, or too potent?
Can go wrong? Sure, so should be used with caution, like anything else powerful.
> The kinds of insights and healing you get from e.g. Core Transformation Process or Feldenkrais Method may take longer but they're much safer and unlikely to have negative side-effects.
Are the insights and healing similar?
Is the amount of effort similar?
Is the likelihood of receiving insights similar?
Is there trustworthy evidence suggesting high risk (likelihood and magnitude) of risk with psilocybin, and trustworthy evidence that there is lesser risk with <x>?
I feel fairly certain the answer to most of these questions is something like: "We don't know, for sure, because there is very little evidence outside of anecdotal stories."
Good to know. What I find interesting in such conversations is the differences of opinions experienced people have about from where "the magic" is coming.
> To sum up, the cure is not in the pill, it's in the set and setting. The pill just gives you an excuse. You can also use e.g. hypnosis, prayer, drumming, dancing, sweat lodges, or weird breathing, to effect the change you want, just to
name a small sampling of the available modalities.
I feel certain that you have far more background (than my zero) in these other fields, but despite fairly extensive reading on the matter, I have encountered very little that leads me to believe (and much that opposes the idea) that the magnitude of what can be practically achieved by the common man with these other techniques comes anywhere near to what can be achieved with an afternoon of reasonably organized psychedelic usage. To be clear, this isn't to say that I oppose such practices, or claim they have no value - I believe the exact opposite of that, they seem to also be tremendously valuable, but my intuition tells me that psychedelics have way better bang per unit of effort.
Of course, but be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that members in those communities are homogeneous. There's certainly no shortage of woo-woo style thinking, but there are also enthusiasts who think about it very seriously and analytically. These same people will also tell you that anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. These are the people who should be mainly listened to.
Regardless, I fail to see any evidence that supports the assertion that you also need therapy, that you cannot benefit substantially without it. Those who have literally no first hand experience with psychedelics are not exactly objective either, but it sure doesn't stop them from confidently passing out advice.