Why aren't the hippies of the 60s writing great books and producing wonderful music?
Indeed, or the stoners from the 1980s in charge of the world? And why did we have so few names for our "Hessians who have also succeeded in life" thread?
Drugs and alcohol, sex and buying shiny products, and so on, are distractions. The real game is to get your head clear, find a path in life and something you like doing, and excel at it.
Drugs are like a warm bath. If life is too hard, you soak in the bath. But then life seems even colder, so you stay. Eventually, a day passes... and then another.
Why do we see so few drug users succeed in anything but entertainment?
As in politics, where measuring the success of a structural change takes centuries or longer, in life measuring the success of a habit takes a lifetime or longer. The proof is out there: drugs, alcohol and casual sex are pathways to failure.
Not surprisingly, they're very popular with the peasants and urban drones. Are you man, or slave-man? Go pick me some cotton, stoners!
Again, you're adding magical properties to drugs which I really doubt exist. What exactly are you heading towards other than incoherence? What drugs are you talking about? Why aren't the hippies of the 60s writing great books and producing wonderful music?
But isn't the whole existential dilemma that without an infallible foundation to work with then any reasoning can only be a matter of induction rather than deduction, and thus thoughts and actions made without such foundation are all equally invalid? It seems to me that at issue should be a process of deconstruction, to discover an infallible foundation if any exists, and that sighting scarecrows along the way is still only an inductive affirmation, a knee-jerk reaction to slow down the whole frightening process of propulsion into the Abyss, a fear of the unknown. Ironically certain drugs are uniquely suited to propel you towards the Abyss, bypassing your trepidations whether you like it or not (although personally I would not count marijuana among such drugs).
No, I'm saying that you are introducing unneeded error into the equation by basing your worldview on religious/drug altered experiences which are irrelevant to reality.
I don't really like building my world view from an unreality (not saying that I'm an empiricist/positivist either though).Are you implying that your current reality paradigm does possess a foundation 100% impeccable in its logical conclusiveness? If not, then on what basis do you submit that drug use is incompatible with the spiritual realization of such a foundation?
Progression and self-realisation begins by disregarding unreals and the irrelevant (drug based hallucinations, seeking out God, believing in UFOs etc), not using them as a foundation.
I am speaking about infallible logical foundation, it doesn't get any more logical and non-magical than that. I am using the metaphor of the Abyss to represent the existential dilemma which the necessity for infallible logical foundation points towards (a relatively commonly used metaphor), but I do not mean to imply anything 'magical' per se.
Certainly not all drugs have the potential to be very spiritually conducive, but which specific drugs I'm talking about is I think off the point.
Timothy Leary sums it up best: "drugs have the capacity to render insane people who don't use them". I'm not saying drugs are at all prerequisites for enlightenment, but let me tell you a story. In my youth my parents objected to my drug use and my spirituality (my parents being atheists suspected my 'irrational' spirituality resulted from my drug use), so much so that they forced me to sit down with a psychiatrist with them. We all got to talking, and one of the first things the psychologist asked me was "do you feel you need drugs to be spiritual?". I replied with a very specific statement, something I had rehearsed a hundred times before because so many people would ask me that same question. It was the honest truth, and I did not jumble my words when I said it, I have a very clear recollection of the event (no I was not on drugs at the time).
I replied "that's a great question, because in the vast majority of cases drugs do get used in less than ideal fashion. So I make a big point to be clear about this with myself, It's very important for me. I never use drugs to complete or substitute my spirituality, I only use them to compliment and enhance my spirituality."
The psychologist then responded "so you're saying that you need drugs to be spiritual?" I stared at him amazed, but when I turned to ask my father to back me up he said he heard the same thing that the psychologist heard, and when I turned to my other side to get my mother's opinion she also agreed with the two of them. For the rest of the session, the psychologist and my parents felt I seemed to be unusually agitated.
Believe it or not, that example is not far from the status quo with regards to talking to people intelligently about drug use. Whether it's people who are ignorant about drugs, or people who use drugs and who are still nonetheless ignorant about them, basically zero percent of the population gets it.
Some of you seem to think that the masses are ignorant, but that there are still a precious few who possess some degree of wisdom. But the difference between you and me is that I see that precious few to be considerably smaller
. You seem to measure it by 'real-world success', as if even though you reject the system you can still use its framework to make value judgments about people.
Being dogmatic in favor of drugs is as stupid as being dogmatic against drugs.
I'll make the point again. I am an infrequent user of cannabis, yet I have a steady part time job, attend university (with a 3.3 GPA at the moment), work out/exercise 3 or 4 times a week, read good books, listen to inspiring music, cook, play bass and guitar, and am constantly wanting to learn (and learning) new things.
Not saying every person who uses has to be like me, but there are not just non users and handjob-giving drug addicts; you can't split people up into those categories so easily.
Proclaim me a loser/moron/faggot for using marijuana if you must, I will take no heed as I continue down my path in life.
Sounds like you think you're 'better' than a random homeless person on the streets. And if I may insert a few words into your mouth (or if it is not the case for you, then for others instead): what is 'better'? To say you are 'better' in a general sense, in terms of 'meaning' or 'value' or 'virtue', this is to say nothing at all, for you are not basing it on anything. A person can be more artistic or athletic or mathematically apt or etc than another person, but 'better'? To say that 'better' somehow implies a level of meaning beyond these mundane qualities is to say that it possesses no meaning at all, that by definition it is a hollow label thrown about to support ignorant egocentrism. All that's left is the mundane things themselves, what every facet of society tells you to measure yourself by. There is no 'better' or 'worse'. But an equally important point is: there's no 'equal', either (there is no point of reference). Some people are just more artistic, athletic, mathematically apt, etc than others. Or in other words, everyone is different
. Now show me how these differences can encourage or discourage realization of infallible logical foundation, and then you may truly say that some things in life are more or less healthy
than others. At best 'betterness' is a bi-product of health--health is not a bi-product of 'betterness' and I should say that painting it as being so is decidedly unhealthy.