Psychedelic Sobriety: An Interview with Peter Bebergal

Peter Bebergal grew up a decade after the utopian glow of early popular psychedelic explorers had been tempered in murders, burn-outs and continuing Cold War nihilism. Acid flowed freely, but it was a street-side urban experience made more potent through punk rock and popular occultism. With the mythic promises of peace and transcendence still drifting in the air, Bebergal set off on a journey that lead through addiction and despair, while never losing sight of the deeper truths found in the psychedelic experience.
In his recently published memoir, Too Much to Dream: A Psychedelic American Boyhood, Bebergal explores his experience through personal reflections and interviews with psychedelic luminaries, such as Dennis McKenna, James Fadima, Arik Roper, Jim Woodring, and Mark Tulin. Using his personal reflections for the basis of a historical study of psychedelics in American culture, he brings a unique perspective to how popular media and culture affect the results of what has in the past been the sole domain of sacred ritual.
The recent resurgence of academic interest in entheogens, and their role in consciousness studies, gives Bebergal's work a particular weight as it explores the responsibility, illumination and potential dangers of unwary wandering. In the following interview, conducted via email, I had the opportunity to explore in more detail some of the nuances of the book's message.
How did writing this historically centered autobiography help you understand your experiences?
The single most important thing I realized was how mediated my experiences had been. Whether it was Silver Surfer comic books, Syd Barrett albums, or William Blake's poetry, cultural artifacts formed the language of my trips, my ideas, my hopes, and my fears. In understanding this, I came to believe that all experiences, not matter how pure we think they might be, are intimately shaped by symbols and mythologies and grammar.
As
I say in the book, there can be no pure experience. Even during the most
profound context-smashing acid trip, our unconscious is drawing from a rich and
abundant well. Maybe it's a Ray Bradbury story read in seventh grade or maybe
it's a passage from the Vedas.
You mention that one of your first
exposures to psychedelics was reading Carlos Castenada's Don Juan books in your
highschool library. Why did your
highschool have Castaneda in the library, today those would most likely never
get on the shelves?
Castaneda was part of the genesis of the mass marketing of alternative spirituality
that really took off in the mid seventies. His books could be found just about
anywhere. His writings had a profound effect on people trying to make sense of
their psychedelic experiences as well those who were fed up with
Judeo-Christian normative religion,
but were seeking a spiritual path closer to home than say Buddhism or Hinduism.
His books are easy to read, filled with sentence after sentence of quotable spiritual nuggets, and the biographical-anthropological framing gave the books some legitimacy that felt both personal and academic. His story seemed believable, despite how far out some of the events are.
Did your negative experiences lead to a
better understanding of the distinction between magic and mysticism?
I can't think of anything more important to my spiritual life at this moment than this distinction. In the context of trying to understand how this had played out in my own life, particularly in regards to my addiction and recovery, I discovered people had been wrestling with this for a long time.
For
example, since the Renaissance magicians, (most of whom were decidedly Christian no
matter how heretical they accused of being), the relationship to magical workings
and mystical experiences has been a thorn in many a magus's side. The early
Jewish kabbalists tried to resolve this by seeing magic as a tool for naming
the heavenly creatures the mystic might encounter during ascension. By naming
the angels/demons the rabbi could control and ultimately banish them so as to
clear the path. This kind of magic is often called theurgy, as opposed to
thaumaturgy, which might seek to actually change something in the physical
world.
The danger is that power of any kind becomes a kind of end in and of itself. So
if you can control the spirit enough to banish it, what if you held onto it and
commanded it to do something else; smite an enemy, reveal the location of
treasure, or clean the kitchen. Suddenly union with the godhead doesn't see so
interesting anymore. Arthur Waite, known mainly for his Tarot deck, was often
in conflict with the Golden Dawn over this, and eventually, along with the
writer Arthur Machen, left the magical order in pursuit of more mystical
endeavors.
Later,
writers from Evelyn Underhill to Aldous Huxley would remind the person pursuing
mystical experiences to be wary of magical ideas that arise as they are sure to
throw you off course.
My own recovery and spiritual life is often about making sure I don't mistake
my own will for God's or better yet, to hope that my will aligns with what the
universe would have of me rather than what I might like to impose on it.
Do you think the greater depth of mythological studies in recent years is giving a better basis to understand the archetypal interplay that exist in the study of consciousness?
It's incredible really, how much more profound even simple experiences can be when you use the stories of gods as metaphors and references. I think the danger is, as Umberto Eco warns in Foucault's Pendulum, is turning metaphysics into mechanics. When we literalize our myths we strip them of their power to act on our unconsciousness minds and their ability to plant seeds for creative understandings.
I think Karen Armstrong is our greatest writer on both myth's power and what happens when we de-mythologize our stories. We end up with things like the Creation Museum, or dangerous apocalyptic thinking.
Since your youthful experimentation,
you've steered clear of taking any entheogens, but you still maintain that there
is a value in the lessons these substances impart. Can you elucidate more on the idea of "Psychedelic Sobriety"?
Have you gained a deeper appreciation for the full depth of the psychedelic experience
by staying sober?
No matter how good or bad my experiences were, they forever changed the way I perceive the world. I learned the value of the fringe, that real meaning is often found where everyone else is not looking.
I also have come to value how powerful the psychedelic experience is. It is not recreational, although it is used as such, but we should as a society have a bit more respect. Yet at the same time, I am not convinced that psychedelics can tell us anything useful about the shape or telos of the universe.
Sam Harris recently wrote on his blog, "As a general matter, I believe we should be very slow to make conclusions about the nature of the cosmos based upon inner experience- no matter how profound these experiences seem."
Nevertheless, I also believe that our consciousness is intimately connected to the physical universe, and so maybe some day we will discover that quantum theory works on big things as well as very small ones and we will begin to understand better how they reflect each other. So above, so below.
In the book you mention that you experimented with hypnosis. How do you think your experiences with hypnosis would have been changed in a ritualized context?
Like most things, I would have benefited by having a deeper mythological language by which to create more apt metaphors by which to understand those deep trances and the images I encountered.
This
again goes to the question of language. We need language. We need it to
transmit our experience, and we need it to give clothing to the abstract nature
of those profound encounters with the ineffable. The true nature of God and our
relationship to God is beyond language, but we must talk about it. It is an
essential part of being human; to craft ritual and story.
Starting with the psychologist William James who developed the criteria for
evaluating what can be called a mystical experience and up to an including the
recent research at Johns Hopkins investigating whether or not psilocybin can
occasion these experience, there necessarily arises another question. If people
from such disparate backgrounds share these common descriptors, there must be a
universal, objective spiritual "well" from which all these experiences arise
that transcends religious and cultural language. But in some ways, the thing
that's important is the transmission of these experiences, and that
transmission is wholly dependent on language.
You present a view of Art as a sort of psychedelic medium in itself, could you elaborate on that?
Sometimes I think the only that people do that really matters is art, and I have found that in trying to understand my own experiences, I always turn to it-- be it music, literature, illustration -- to get a handle on them. The impetus for writing Too Much to Dream really began as a kind of mid-life crisis. I have not ingested in psychedelic for over twenty years, and I found myself reflecting again on what the original desire was all about, that compulsion for an ecstatic experience.
But instead of turning again to drugs, I started listening to psychedelic music again, and it was here that I discovered how powerful music is at conveying altered states, altered ideas, and narrating the longing for transcendence. And clothed in the excess of rock 'n' roll just makes it all the more immediate, exciting, and human. I don't' want to know what God looks like. I want to read the stories of those struggling like me, who might be willing to get close enough to get burned, to hear their songs, to study the emblems in their art.
How does disconnecting the study of
psychedelic consciousness from sacramental use, such as some of the recent
studies have tried to do, affect the result?
Some might argue that any use of these substances divorced from sacramental use is a disconnection. We want to commune with God, or the gods, but what if we have not learned their names through mythological and ritual means? I often wonder how these experiences can be really spiritual without being mediated by some deep connection to a tradition?
But more importantly, and I think a more complicated question is can there be any experience that is not mediated? How can one trust a deeply profound psychedelic experience that seems to teach something about God or the universe that is not a product of expectations and cultural detritus.
We
are waterlogged with culture, and while some experiences feel as though they
key direct from the cosmos into our souls. We often don't want to admit how
many associations are picked up along way; everything from music to
literature to movies to the sacred texts that inspire us.
As much as people are pleased that psychedelic research is being taken seriously, and the drugs themselves are finally again being tested in controlled and rigorous environments, there are many people in the underground who still believe these substances should remain free and "uncontrolled" as at it were because any FDA approved research will not, by virtue of the academic environment in which they are done, give enough deference to the spiritual dimension of the experience.
Did you find that the artists that you talked to had a different experience with psychedelics than some of the scientists, psychologists and theorists? Was there any common ground?
Amongst
all the people I spoke with, most agreed that psychedelics can be valuable for
revealing important and necccessary things about the shape of human
consiousness and about the spiritual dimension of our lives, but that
eventually one must carve out a path -- art, meditation, activism, magic,
music -- to give these experiences lasting and even deeper meaning. The great
transpersonal psychologist Charles Tart told me in an interview, "the
value of psychedelics is what manifests later on and is more important than the
experience."
The other interesting thing, in terms or difference, was how the scientists
working under FDA approval had to negotiate the tricky territory of the
pscyhedelic underground. These two worlds intersect in some essential ways, but
often are at odds regarding intention and most importantly, what the value is
of objective and rigorous science.
As you know, many psychedelic conferences hold panels on everything ranging from the use of MDMA for PTSD to alchemical symbols and spiritual transformation. Many scientists worry that their work will not be taken seriously if they are lumped in with what they perceive as spiritual woo-woo or pseudoscience. It would be like having a panel on astrology at a conference on astrophysics.
And for those who value the spiritual dimension of psychedelics, the hard science fails to recognize or understand that not all experiences and truths are measurable in an FDA research setting.
How did these conversations help you frame your own experience?
What I came to realize that there is no one approach to understanding the role psychedelics play. The range of theories and methods is so vast, that I finally understood that while my experiences left much to be desired, they were also very real and not so uncommon.
This was made very concrete for me by Michael Murphy, one of the founders of Esalen, who despite his best efforts, never had a good trip and eventually came to see that psychedelics simply were not intended for his spiritual development. Here is a man at the center of the spiritual revolution, where everyone around him is holding these substances up as the key to human transformation and he said, "No thanks, not for me."
This allowed me to see that it didn't matter whether I failed the drugs or they failed me. I was going to have to find another way into the heart of God.
Mckenna said that rather than seeing mystical experiences as aberrations of ordinary experience, they should be seen rather as providing privileged insights into them. Thus, he said that all theories should be tested against the mystical experience, which would be asked to play the role of a criterion of truth in a 'psychedelic science'.
Do you think today's studies are coming closer to that? Is it justified to use mystical experiences as the basis for truth, when so many folks are living lives that are disconnected from that? Or is there a deeper mysticism in the ordinary that is missed by focusing on extreme experiences?
Well
again, I worry about what we bring to these experiences. I think they are
guideposts and can serve as inspirations, but the real question is what do we
do after we have the mystical experience. Does it prompt us towards a spiritual
life, or do we become so enamored of the mystical moment that we continue to
seek it over and again. Huston Smith warned of making a "religion of religious
experiences." What good do these do for us, not matter how category
smashing they may be, if they don't actually transform us?
On the other hand, there is something to be said for the simple experience of
having our perceptions altered, in whatever way that might happen. We often
need to be able to look at things in a new way to learn, as you say, to see the
deeper mysticism in the ordinary.
It's those moments when you are suddenly apprehended by the smallest detail; crows exploding out of the tops of trees, rain late at night as you are falling off to sleep, the arc of the Milky Way on a clear winter night. The gods are there also, waiting for us to meet them half-way.
Peter Bebergal is author of Too Much to Dream: A Psychedelic American Boyhood, a memoir/cultural history of drugs and mysticism (Soft Skull Press, 2011) and co-author, with Scott Korb, of The Faith Between Us (Bloomsbury, 2007). He blogs at mysterytheater.blogspot.com.
Image by mattlemon, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
Tweet- 12-14-11
- David Metcalfe's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version









Comments
From Phantasmagoria to Mystical Clarity
One problem with any excessive focus of limiting the understanding ... {as if trying to separate the "trip" from "the actual tripping"} ... of the "entheogenic experience" {as opposed to mere "mind candy" ... psychedelic fiction and fantasy .. hallucinations as opposed to true vision etc.} solely in relation to science and/or psychology ... leaving "subjective revelation" behind, as if itself sacrificed up for "objective relativity" ... is that the unlimited variety of personal inner alchemical transformation will obviously forever throw principles into the quantum mix beyond all the estimated probabilities of the empirical method.
If certain wholistic substances {mushrooms peyote etc} in their natural, organic form, are truely "tree-of-life" / "garden-of-eden" substances, {as opposed to synthetic isolated aspects of potential - termed "drugs"} then how is not both the very mind of the scientist and / or psychologist not themselves subject to transcendence to all so-called methods of analysis in relation to the actual experience of these entheogens.
I sometimes wonder if there would ever be a "bad trip" if the only psychedelic experiences had were those of holistic organic origins .. no synthetic variations on the themes ... and /or were only done by those living in natural organic settings {not a society of concrete, plastic & mechanistic-reductionistic industrialism ... that as ones mind potentiates in relation to such potencies, that whatever mixtures of influence pervade ones life ... well such influences to some degree alter the very nature of the vision had.
Similar to dream, one sometimes dreams of real events "mixed up" with phantasmogical imagery ... like knowing of both gold and mountains ... and dreaming of golden mountains.
In virtually every one of my earlier psychedlic experiences from mid 70's to early 80's ... there would come a point or peak in the experience where the entheogenic nature or "spiritual" natured insight would reveal itself as the natural progressive outcome of all the eye candy / mind candy ... not mattering which substance used {mescaline, psylicibin, LSD, THC}
That so-called hallucinations {hallowed / holy lucidity} can and do mature, evolve, progress, advance to the point of actual entheogenic vision and/or understanding all on their own as a natural outcome if not hindered by the subjective mind or spirit itself.
I only rarely dabble these days, only for select insightful purposes every couple of years or so, {leaving lots of time to integrate with other aspects of integrative reality} only with organic wholistic substances, after a couple of decades of non-use ... but will likely always consider the possibility of furthered lessons of value from such synergistic states of being ... up to the moment of death, as I just cannot separate the entheogenic state from the so-called ordinary one any more than one can separate a caffine buzz from "ordinary reality" ...
Like the age-old argument of whether such substances are either necessary for mysticism or are mere crutches ultimately on the path of spirituality ... as opposed to being just intrinsic aspects of integrative reality either way ... only the humanistic mind itself lending such dualistic dichotomy to the consciousness all on it's own.
Not to down play the power and true potency of these substances but that there is no reality but reality anywhere in any state of being, and that all wholistic organic substances {food,medicine, entheogen} merely support and /or enhance different areas of ones being, but only in relation to reality.
Any fantasy or fiction are only the workings of the mind itself {similar to day dreaming and other natural phenomenon of mind} and not intrinsicaly inherent in the good or evil fruits of the "entheogenic tree" ... "of life" {wholistic /Holy} or "of knowledge" {dualistic / oppositional} ... {Biblical Mysticism etc} ... just what is the motivational impetus/ hence conclusion of ones appetite itself {Adams apple} ... ???
Hopefully all of our progressive studies will reveal this as we mature in our insightful approach.
Of course after like around age 24 {now 53} I no longer partook of any synthetic substances like LSD etc ... {would never try MDMA for instance} only "actual mushrooms, peyote buttons etc. I know many friends and acquantences who will no longer experiement in their older age, as if affraid of something.
Hallucinating can be a scary thing {beautiful thing also} ... but so can ordinary dreaming ... nightmares forcing one to wake up in a cold sweat.
I once heard it said that only 2% of those who tripped on LSD had trips bad enough to make them wish they never partook of the association ... probably about the same "slight" amount of proportion of nightmares in relation to dream. { a relatively rare occurance, but not necessarily lacking in insighfulness .. able to learn from horror/ghastliness /chaos, as much as from beauty, cogency etc}
Both the Buddha and Jesus {along with countless other mystics} saw both beautiful and horrible things in their entheogenic fasting and mystical visionary states ... all was considered but partial aspects of the over all state of conclusion {nirvana, rapture etc} ... fear being no less valuable than adoration as a life lesson. {for example}
In every day "waking consciousness" there is likely the exact same proprtion of problematic scenarios / "bad trips"{war, rape, murder etc} as opposed to enlivening ones {entheogenic moments } as in any so-called alternative state of awarenes. in relation to these substances.
Yet we feverishly glorify or deride these substances as if the quality of the experience exists outside of ourselves {ones self etc}
How many "occupiers" and other progressive movers and shakers would not still be asleep in their complacent slumber without such dualistic impetuses of change like fear, dread, and ghastliness, which in "Krsna" mysticism {Vaishnavism - see Bhaktirasamrita Sindhu} are actual "sub-rasas" of conscious humor or mellow in the awakening of the spiritual state.
When, oh when, will the modern humanistic mind quantumly awaken beyond the self-imposed relativity of the empirical method in it's supposed ability to determine reality... along with the associative psycho-socio opinions formed from such speculations, that trickle down and infiltrate the myth of the masses {the very myth of relative science/empiricism itself} ... as if there will ever be a knowing of reality separate from the experience of reality ... ???
... 'likely at the very same moment the mind transcends it's own limited pathology in relation to more cosmic synergy ... with or without the unique support and/or enhancement from any particular person, place or thing.
... humanistic analysis forever it's own disparity in relation to it's own yoke {yoga}
The entheogenic "tree-of-life" fruit itself never really subjective to the serpent of judgement and interpretation {tree of knowledge} in all of it's potentiality .. outside of ones personaly "leaving the Eden" of ecstatic quantum revelation/synchronicity for the mere static inertia of objective relativity itself.
"Wonder is what Mystery would do if it was conscious" ...
"Wandering is for every other possibility
Pippalayana Muni
a solitary bird
“it's better to get something worthwhile done using deception than to fail to get something worthwhile done using truth.”
- Castaneda
What seems natural is to think that a warrior who can hold his own in the face of the unknown can certainly face petty tyrants with impunity. But that's not necessarily so. What destroyed the superb warriors of ancient times was to rely on that assumption. Nothing can temper the spirit of a warrior as much as the challenge of dealing with impossible people in positions of power. Only under those conditions can warriors acquire the sobriety and serenity to withstand the pressure of the unknowable.
Knowledge comes to a warrior, floating, like specks of gold dust, the same dust that covers the wings of moths. So for a warrior, knowledge is like taking a shower, or being rained on by specks of dark gold dust.
A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him, no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive and he survives in the best of all possible fashions.
Acts have power. Especially when the warrior acting knows that those acts are his last battle. There is a strange consuming happiness in acting with the full knowledge that whatever he is doing may very well be his last act on earth.
If a warrior is to succeed in anything, the success must come gently, with a great deal of effort but with no stress or obsession.
Our fellow men are black magicians. And whoever is with them is a black magician on the spot. Think for a moment, can you deviate from the path that your fellow men have lined up for you? And if you remain with them, your thoughts and your actions are fixed forever in their terms. That is slavery. The warrior, on the other hand, is free from all that. Freedom is expensive, but the price is not impossible to pay.
A warrior is never under siege. To be under siege implies that one has personal possessions that could be blockaded. A warrior has nothing in the world except his impeccability, and impeccability cannot be threatened.
- Don Juan
to become a man of knowledge
Anyone can try to become a man of knowledge; very few men actually succeed, but that is only natural. The enemies a man encounters on the path of learning to become a man of knowledge are truly formidable; most men succumb to them.
To be a man of knowledge has no permanence. One is never a man of knowledge, not really. Rather, one becomes a man of knowledge for a very brief instant, after defeating the four natural enemies. When a man starts to learn, he is never clear about his objectives. His purpose is faulty; his intent is vague. He hopes for rewards that will never materialize for he knows nothing of the hardships of learning. He slowly begins to learn – bit by bit at first, then in big chunks. And his thoughts soon clash. What he learns is never what he pictured, or imagined, and so he begins to be afraid. Learning is never what one expects. Every step of learning is a new task, and the fear the man is experiencing begins to mount mercilessly, unyieldingly. His purpose becomes a battlefield.
And thus he has stumbled upon the first of his natural enemies: fear! A terrible enemy – treacherous, and difficult to overcome. It remains concealed at every turn of the way, prowling, waiting. And if the man, terrified in its presence, runs away, his enemy will have put an end to his quest and he will never learn. He will never become a man of knowledge. He will perhaps be a bully, or a harmless, scared man; at any rate, he will be a defeated man. His first enemy will have put an end to his cravings.
It is not possible for a man to abandon himself to fear for years, then finally conquer it. If he gives in to fear he will never conquer it, because he will shy away from learning and never try again. But if he tries to learn for years in the midst of his fear, he will eventually conquer it because he will never have really abandoned himself to it.
Therefore he must not run away. He must defy his fear, and in spite of it he must take the next step in learning, and the next, and the next. He must be fully afraid, and yet he must not stop. That is the rule! And a moment will come when his first enemy retreats. The man begins to feel sure of himself. His intent becomes stronger. Learning is no longer a terrifying task.
When this joyful moment comes, the man can say without hesitation that he has defeated his first natural enemy. It happens little by little, and yet the fear is vanquished suddenly and fast. Once a man has vanquished fear, he is free from it for the rest of his life because, instead of fear, he has acquired clarity – a clarity of mind which erases fear. By then a man knows his desires; he knows how to satisfy those desires. He can anticipate the new steps of learning and a sharp clarity surrounds everything. The man feels that nothing is concealed.
And thus he has encountered his second enemy: Clarity! That clarity of mind, which is so hard to obtain, dispels fear, but also blinds. It forces the man never to doubt himself. It gives him the assurance he can do anything he pleases, for he sees clearly into everything. And he is courageous because he is clear, and he stops at nothing because he is clear. But all that is a mistake; it is like something incomplete. If the man yields to this make-believe power, he has succumbed to his second enemy and will be patient when he should rush. And he will fumble with learning until he winds up incapable of learning anything more. His second enemy has just stopped him cold from trying to become a man of knowledge. Instead, the man may turn into a buoyant warrior, or a clown. Yet the clarity for which he has paid so dearly will never change to darkness and fear again. He will be clear as long as he lives, but he will no longer learn, or yearn for, anything.
He must do what he did with fear: he must defy his clarity and use it only to see, and wait patiently and measure carefully before taking new steps; he must think, above all, that his clarity is almost a mistake. And a moment will come when he will understand that his clarity was only a point before his eyes. And thus he will have overcome his second enemy, and will arrive at a position where nothing can harm him anymore. This will not be a mistake. It will not be only a point before his eyes. It will be true power.
He will know at this point that the power he has been pursuing for so long is finally his. He can do with it whatever he pleases. His ally is at his command. His wish is the rule. He sees all that is around him. But he has also come across his third enemy: Power!
Power is the strongest of all enemies. And naturally the easiest thing to do is to give in; after all, the man is truly invincible. He commands; he begins by taking calculated risks, and ends in making rules, because he is a master.
A man at this stage hardly notices his third enemy closing in on him. And suddenly, without knowing, he will certainly have lost the battle. His enemy will have turned him into a cruel, capricious man, but he will never lose his clarity or his power.
A man who is defeated by power dies without really knowing how to handle it. Power is only a burden upon his fate. Such a man has no command over himself, and cannot tell when or how to use his power.
Once one of these enemies overpowers a man there is nothing he can do. It is not possible, for instance, that a man who is defeated by power may see his error and mend his ways. Once a man gives in he is through. If, however, he is temporarily blinded by power, and then refuses it, his battle is still on. That means he is still trying to become a man of knowledge. A man is defeated only when he no longer tries, and abandons himself.
He has to come to realize that the power he has seemingly conquered is in reality never his. He must keep himself in line at all times, handling carefully and faithfully all that he has learned. If he can see that clarity and power, without his control over himself, are worse than mistakes, he will reach a point where everything is held in check. He will know then when and how to use his power. And thus he will have defeated his third enemy.
The man will be, by then, at the end of his journey of learning, and almost without warning he will come upon the last of his enemies: Old age! This enemy is the cruelest of all, the one he won’t be able to defeat completely, but only fight away.
This is the time when a man has no more fears, no more impatient clarity of mind – a time when all his power is in check, but also the time when he has an unyielding desire to rest. Don’t indulge in being fatigued. Your fatigue is, more than fatigue, a desire not to be bothered. Something in you resents being bothered. But it’s most important that you exacerbate that part of you until it breaks down. If a man gives in totally to his desire to lie down and forget, if he soothes himself in tiredness, he will have lost his last round, and his enemy will cut him down into a feeble old creature. His desire to retreat will overrule all his clarity, his power, and his knowledge.
But if the man sloughs off his tiredness, and lives his fate though, he can then be called a man of knowledge, if only for the brief moment when he succeeds in fighting off his last, invincible enemy. That moment of clarity, power and knowledge is enough.
- Don Juan
late 60's
far out, man
still there
Grace Slick, said, "if you remember the 60's you were not there" well, I do remember
a lot of it, maybe it comes from writing poetry for the last 41 years, prolly because I began having psychic breaks call em shamanic breaks, whatever, when I was in my early 20's, I wantd to write a novel about being a crazy hippie poet in Santa Cruz Calif. in the 70's
but I realized that I could write about my teenager psychedelic days in the late 60's
I wanted to tell it like it was, through the eyes of a crazy surrealist poet, meaning that
I spent a lot of years reading stuff that was about surrealism, and anything else that
went along in that rich vein, so my novel uses surrealism to get into the LSD trips that
I experienced, in 67' 68', kinda Burroughs influenced, kinda a little Hunter Thompson, I
like to think of myself as that hippie kid that was picked up by Hunter and the laywer,
in the beginning of Fear and Loathing, except I go along for the ride, that is kinda what
the spirit of my novel is, a lot of prose poetry mixed in with the story line, a series of
trips, one mescaline and one speed trip, the rest LSD trips, against the backdrop of
the usual teenage sexual awakening and the times a changin and Hendrix and
Doors playin in the black light lit background.
Thanks for sharing
but who is trying to impose their morality now?
methodologies are essentially tools, and a means to an end... they are not "good" or "bad" in themselves but rather acquire such connotations during their usage
it is the intent which is harmful or not.. and harmful intent does not depend on religion or politics or violence or really anything at all - it can be generated through any given situation, if that is your choice
I would probably agree with the gnostics that saw Jesus as a shining example of what NOT to do even in the midst of what MUST be done... the Word of Warning.. which is not to say that his personal contributions were wholly incorrect, but rather that he was mixed up, incomplete and essentially cut down by his own hubris
The mainstream christian bible still retains an aspect of this (which is largely ignored by the cult of people who think that going to a specific geographic location for an hour a week means they will forever exist in a sumptuos paradise after they die)
45Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
47Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
48And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
49The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
What most people do not understand is how siddhis and great "magical" power or miracles can be invested in and generated by people who are not "perfect" and fully divine, who have deep character flaws and so forth. In fact, the realm of such power is the manifestation of error at a level of purity which is unknown to the average person. To them, such purity of error may even be seen as the ultimate highest point of existence... however, there is still work to be done, even after great siddhis begin to appear. Their appearance is itself the path of that work, the new indications of where to look within to go deeper into the source, and uncover the origin which is truly indestructible, untraceable, and all-encompassing.
no sleep till brooklyn
indoctrination is not limited to christian dogma, but also contains materialistic dogma, atheistic dogma, eastern philosophy dogma, new age dogma, anti-dogma dogma, and so on
I agree that christianity was the popular receptacle for mind-control, political and territorial domination, and the legacy of the church is mostly one of mass murder, horror, torture and so forth
I really dont need to read those books to understand the premise you have presented here, because I have uncovered all kinds of things such as these while living my own life and coming in contact with other people
second hand knowledge such as books and lectures and scriptures and that kind of thing just doesnt have the same effect on your life as first hand experience... for example, when you say:
and this inner division simultaneously projects out and then the world is seen with a paranoid eye
it actually sounds ironic
im implying that you sound paranoid
Everyone has first hand experience with life, but very few people have first hand experience with the unknowable
You are saying that I am projecting out my paranoia onto the world,
yes
and therefore have no right to critique belief systems like christianity which I accuse the same?
no, this is your own invention
and it is very fitting regarding your methodology to bring up someone having "no right" ... but it is your own conclusion you have jumped too
i think people have the right to do whatever they want, because everyone has to deal with the consequences of their actions sooner or later - im not running for office, and im not concerned with enforcing public safety
its entirely obvious to me that people who cannot govern themselves will not be able to govern others, and since the majority of people have this problem, i find most authoritarian systems to be a complete joke
it seems that most people consider themselves so much better than animals, but really they are not much different.. they just have alot more room for conditioning - like pavlov ringing a bell and the dog starts to drool.. its a whole shitload of that kind of thing with humans
if the shoe fits, wear it
ignorantia legis neminem excusat
Yas dont make sense man. Like I said.
I heard you, and I understand why you would say that.
Sobering
beautiful interview
Nice to hear from someone who has come to peace with psychedelics but doesn't hold them up on a pedestal. I like the references to the need for mythologies, languages to express and experience the divine. And the relationship those languages have to art.
I had an inspiring moment today and it made me realize the importance of new words and thoughts to express experience. Poetry may be the best system of expression since it references our past but always strives for something new. Fixed concepts make for stale dogma.
We try to use old words, and maybe old drugs, like rats hitting the food button, hoping to re-experience our bliss, or escape our suffering forever. but the divine wants to be expressed anew each moment. We go back to our roots then orbit into a new horizon, then come back again.
Magical languages like mythology, art, music, and poetry satisfy this need. A little old, but always recombination and something new. And definitely nothing new for the sake of novelty, that goes bad way too fast. Like a skinless apple. Wealth is inspiration. How do we build something from inspiration? And how do we share what we build?
Say no to drugs!
event horizon