drugo

An excerpt from a paper I'm currently writing. Like the terms ‘taboo’ and ‘totem’, ‘shaman’ is a word that has been imported from a particular ethnographic context — the Siberian Tungus saman — and is now used to describe a much wider focus of academic inquiry and cultural identity. Traditionally in anthropology, ‘shaman’ is a label given to different types of magico-religious practitioners who traverse otherworldly landscapes, aided by spirit-helpers and powers, and perform various types of divination for the benefit of community, including healing, soul retrieval and prophecy (Bourguignon 1973, Winkleman 1989, DuBois 2009). In response to this type of universalising and the wide variety of ethnographic characterisations of shamans, several anthropologists in the mid 1960s argued that shamanism as a field of critical research was ‘meaningless’ and ‘dead’, including Geertz (1973:122) who labelled it a convenient abstraction invented by anthropologists to sort their material. However, shamanism as a field of study did not finish, despite Geertz' prediction. But what precipitated from postcolonial research were more nuanced understandings of the complexity of shamanism—or what Atkinson (1991) and others call 'shamanisms', emphasising plurality and variety. In parallel, studies of shamanism were implicated in the reflexive turn in anthropology, as indicated in Wallis' claim that shamanism represents an ‘academic construct and a word for the West, its meaning inevitably universalized, repeatedly re-fabricated, its definition contested’ (1999:4). As noted above, while for many anthropologists the terms ‘shaman’ and ‘shamanism’ have come to resemble slippery constructs of the academic and historical European imagination, outside academic quarters the terms have been adopted by several identity groups—providing existential meaning in different fringe social fields mainly among the post-industrial countries of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand (Wallis 2003, Znamenski 2007, Mayer 2008, Stuckrad forthcoming-b 2012). In the 1960s and 70s certain revolutionary cultural movements in these post-industrial societies challenged core societal values of ‘progress, rationality and materialism’ and opened to various denominations of the sacred in what several scholars call a ‘novel resurgence of romanticism’ (Znamenski 2007:210, Alexander 2003, Stuckrad 2002, 2012-. ‘Shamanism’ or ‘neo-shamanism’ gained currency in these movements offering, in contrast to institutionalised Christian-based religions and political orders, certain alternative ‘spiritualities’ that were heavily informed by the 1960s and 70s psychedelic/entheogenic culture, the human potential movement, environmentalism, and within these threads various anthropological and academic figures (Atkinson 1992:322, Znamenski 2007:233, Stuckrad 2012-a). Specifically entheogenic shamanism or neo-shamanism in these movements was socialised and commoditised largely with the help of two anthropologists Carlos Castaneda and Michael Harner (Znamenski 2007). Hanegraaff suggests that the cosmological orders and entheogenic themes in these authors’ works have had a considerable impact on the New-Age movement and counter-cultural spirituality at large (2012). However, given that in the 1970s a widespread move from drugs to meditation-like techniques occurred in the context of New Religious Movements—accredited partly to the prohibition of entheogenic substances—entheogenic spirituality evolved into a ‘private and discrete, individualistic practice’ (Hanegraaff 2012). This underground movement re-emerged in the public sphere with the 1980s and 90s rave culture (Jenks 1997). Then with the advent of internet communication technologies entheogenic groups and networks have ‘overwhelmingly... exploded exponentially’ over the last decade leading Hanegraaff to conclude: Whether we like it or not, we are dealing here with a vital a vibrant dimension of popular Western spirituality that has been with us for more than half a century now, and shows no signs of disappearing (Hanegraaff 2012). If, according to Geertz, shamanism was dying in postcolonial anthropology, it nonetheless was reborn in the cultural milieu of late twentieth century new entheogenic movements. Inseparable from this narrative is the older history of shamans and shamanism in European thought that extends to the seventeenth century (Flaherty 1992, Hamayon 1998, Stuckrad 2002, 2012-a). The earlier history of shamanism in the European imagination provides rich perspectives on contemporary examples of the phenomena. Scholar of religion Kocku von Stuckrad (2012-a) details dominant constructions of shamanism in the thoughts of key intellectuals, philosophers and enlightened monarchs of late eighteenth century Europe. The author exposes an ambivalence—conceptualised as ‘refutation and desire’—in influential eighteenth century attitudes towards shamanism which, he argues, reveals an ‘intrinsic tension of the European project of modernity’ (Stuckrad 2012:103-a). Interpreting these late eighteenth century European attitudes toward and constructions of shamanism, Stuckrad concludes that in this context: The shaman is a projection screen for European fantasies, fears, and desires. Lovers and haters of the irrational could fill in the details, whether these details were concerned with a re-invention of pre-Christian Greek philosophy—with Orpheus as a key figure—or with fantasies about the East. The previously noted deconstruction of ‘shamanism’ as a category of anthropological research fits neatly with Stuckrad’s interpretation of eighteenth century European constructions of shamanism. Geertz, Wallis and Stuckrad analysed academic, poetic, and popular characterisations of shamanism and concluded that the characterisations tend to say more about the persons characterising than those labelled shamans. To extend Stuckrad's observation, it seem that contemporary self-defined shamans may have become their own 'projection screen... for fantasies, fears, and desires', and this process appears to demonstrate a significant example of the practice of historicity and cultural construction—i.e. the contemporary invention and becoming of certain figures resourced from the edge of the historical imagination.

In the depths of everywhen permeated by totality Am I god? Yes a mere mortal gripped by timelessness Why crave the ogre totality whose bliss and emptiness resist the new In a straitjacket of everything In the regulation of destiny Come through the gates of this and that a secret whispers in paradox Escape from forever forever and ever Shed the governing eternity Welcome to this body of flesh a spectral poise of intergrace Brief yet vivid as the sunset in disguise Eternity you are dying your time has run-out The vertigo of infinity settles with a single gaze of fear and desire We hail the temporal and urgent possibility

And overcame the vertigo of infinity to become some-[as opposed to every-]thing.

I escaped from the clutches of eternity to incarnate here.

If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. William Blake I don't entirely jive with this quote anymore. It implies that finite existence is dirty. Unless he means dirty as in sexual dirty I'm not sure if I'd adopts a cosmology that tacitly reduces the pleasures of the finite to filth.

My friend smokes a lot of pot, and has for ages. He's concerned about the risks of cancer due to family lineage. But he loves ganja. Do you know if marijuana vapours are carcinogenic (cancer causing) like marijuana smoke?

Great. Thanks Goldtop. I'll pass that on to him.

These dialogical ploys on 'patronising' as projective identification are old-hat and here serve only to blind yourself of criticism. Some obvious narcissistic motifs in your story include the website of your religion being your own name, seeing yourself as some great prophet of eternity, when stating for example, and, of course, creating a thick and complex religious ideology on your own for people to adopt without input from or co-designing with those people points to a grand and some might say messiah complex and self-inflation is never far from authoritarian modes of being. For instance, the "myself" in the quote above works to suck-up any available authority that these religious figures (JC, Mohammad, Buddha) may have in the imagination of potential disciples --- thus displaying covert forms of domination, that eventually come to be couched in the name of 'religious freedom ' In regards to the general flavour of the movement, I'm not sure if obsessing on uncertainty is necessarily a virtuous or stable core religious doctrine for people to adopt. It seems more geared to the methodological postulates of the sciences (cogito) than for relating to things such as gods, spirits, angels, immortality and eternity. Genuine reasons why many people turn to religion include to find solutions for, and solace from, uncertainty and crisis, such as in prayer or indigenous nature-crisis rituals or magic or divination. Obsessing on uncertainty is a sure-fire way to dislocate or banish certain belief and value forms. And, of course, community cannot sustain itself without forms of ‘certainty’ or predictability. Thus whose beliefs and values will more than likely fill the gaps of uncertainty but the charismatic leader who established the system and knows it better than anyone and, more to the point, who has so much personal energy and belief invested in the social experiment.

the whole one man takes-on religion trip is usually unbalanced and grandiose and no doubt authoritarian and narcissistic --- regardless of how crafted these criticisms are integrated into the person's mission or how aware the leader or 'guide' is of his impact on followers or 'participants'. Read with slow hollywood narrator voice, "One mystic... against all odds... brings peace, and, tolerence, to, earth". I find overly structured (and highly psychologised) renditions of the ineffable a tad patronising and exhausting and clunky. Why go to such lengths to intellectualise the divine? Is the cogito not primarily an assemblage of control that is used for holding things at a distance, for abstracting, organising, structuring, and codifying? Parables and story are surely much more holistic and humane channels for engaging with religious truths than the reductiveness of Principles and paradoxical theories. The eternal power of mystery to excite the broad spectrums of human phenomenology and creative agency appears to be much more alive in narratives and the mythic imagination than in logic-structures. This may help account for why religious groups across history embody story as absolutely key to cosmology and soteriology. We live a story, not a theory. The desire to overly consult the cogito as the centre channel of religious truth may partially account for why one-man-designer religions seem to (whether they realise it or not) risk creating covert forms of oppression, which include the real risks of dissociating agency from disciples (or subtle psychic colonisation; the attempting to craft 'lost' or curious people into structures in the leaders head). Terms such as 'freedom' and 'tolerence' are extremely contingent and relative to things such as history, language, culture, politics, and motivations. To not only assume your view of these concepts as universal but to prescribe them to religion proper shows a good case of BIG HEAD syndrome. a few excerpts from transmet, its a bit over the top, but interesting n funny see complete story here http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/22160-excerpt-from-warren-elliss-transmetropolitan/

contemporary aussie psychedelic rock in Newcastle ...video mashup

Is humanity, as a whole, evolving or getting better at being moral or ethical? It appears that technology is constantly growing, mutating, complexifying and 'evolving' to better things (or at least to quicker, more efficient, powerful, helpful and unbelievable things); planes, trains and automobiles kick-ass compared to horses or feet (for traveling that is) and electric fridges are much better than a hole in the ground with salt crystals preserving meat. But, what about the history of morality, ethics, and 'the good'? Are we humans now better, more respectful, more integral and dignified than we were 400 years ago? How about 2000 years ago? or 50,000? What is the 'universal decleration of human rights' all about? Does it indicate any type of evolution or adaptive success in humanity's moral standards? What about environmental laws against corporate toxification of nature? Or what about Ghandi criminalising the old Hindu expectation that widows must publicly burn themselves to death to show pure devotion to their dead husband? Relativists would toilet the thought of this questions, but given the undeniable fact of globalisation, along with the reality that all humans 'relate' to the earth, it appears that the comparative history of morality (or moralities) should not be avoided with an over-the-top relativist escapism. Are we more good than we used to be? If so or no, then in what ways?

Cool, thanks for the practice, sounds interesting, i look forward to spending more time as the 'other' and contemplating contridictions. . roop, this is not directed at u, but with u, i get bored of strict debates sometimes and am called to where mystery and imagination fuel the glories structures of knowledge. Grant Morrison -- The Invisibles

I tend to relate to the world as being simultaneously unified-to and distinct-within it. A paradox yes, but it is the best way I can account for the experiences of 5-meo and other moments of seemingly becoming or being everything. However, truth be told, I am far more interested in the ‘distinct-within’ part, and, in particular, the ‘with’ part of ‘with-in’; in other words, exploring the miralce of incarnation including the interpersonal and interbeing currents of life that stream with fragrance, beauty, terror, compassion, eyes, wonder, movement, love, plants, pain, misery, joy… that type of jazz. It is clear that a good portion of people in contemporary spirituality movements are attempting to live a reality that virtually destroys or denies the self. A person overly consumed in themselves is an ugly sight indeed, yet so is a person who is radically not interested in themselves. To not believe in yourself and what you’re doing is to starve yourself of life-force. Yet, at the same time, to not be open to alterity, otherness, diversity or transformation, is to rob life-force of its novelty-engine and to perhaps avoid the human project. The notion of balance in Aristolean ethics is probably well suited to this particular quandary. The locus of ‘alterity, otherness, diversity or transformation’, I think, is best probed in the domains of morality and politics, given that truth and reality are often so damn malleable. How else is our global community organised? We believe all sorts of completely contradictory things, yet it appears that the contradictions in thought, symbols, and narratives of the past-future (creation, cosmology, soteriology) that help make the world such a rich, beautiful and wondrous place to inhabit are largely shaped by forms of political organisation (‘politics’ as simply the position and relationship of beings to other beings). [*read with Sean Connery tour-guide voice] “Welcome to human life and the organising moment. If you look around you will see forms coloured by endless spectrums and creative displays of the aesthetic-grotesque value continuum --- an undeniable spectacle of absolute importance”. Studying mythologies, including Hollywood---as the stories that animate the living-stories of life---shows how social groups are constantly politically organising themselves with different truth claims and reality assumptions, allocating certain levels of respect and indignation to different ‘characters’ of the social imagination. For instance, look at the grotesque depictions of Africans, Asians and Indigenous Americans in most 20th century Westerns ["Yeehaa!"]. Or ‘white’ people in Yoruba myths during and after the African slave-trade movement. Or look at the aesthetic eroticisation of Hawaiian Hula girls in early 20th Century Westerns or African women in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Or look at the radical changes to Egyptian god-forms and myths that were introduced during political crises (wars) each time the 3000 year civilisation moved through its 31 distinct dynasties. Or look at how the Superman meme in the 1920s was shaped to help motivate Americans out of the depression then was re-hashed in the Cold War as a type of mythological force to help the American imagination combat the Soviets and the threat of nuclear holocaust. It seems clear that ‘objectivity’, ‘absolutism’, ‘god’, 'ancestors' and ‘freedom’ are often evoked as forces to colonise, convert, pollinate, and expand or destroy different politicised realities (and sometimes, in particular circumstances, we each personally agree with certain creative hybrids of reality, politics and moral frequencies). Morality is in our blood and in the smell of flowers and gun-grease. To avoid politics and morality is to avoid the novelty-engine of the human project (and, of course, we are here engaging in this forum as political agents, whether we like it or not, we are doing it).

The ego is not all bad news. It is simply your conception of yourself, how you 'see' yourself, including how you place yourself in intersubjective fields and what sort of relationship you have with the act of thinking. To alienate the ego from the heavens and to banash the act of judgement with it is preposterous Does the (higher angelic divine-twin super) Self not inform and attune to the ego by way of certain dialectical or mutual embodied harmonies? Thus, this is why the divine 'voices' in your head, the visions on your way to sleep, or in dreams, or with entheogens, inform, answer, and shift-with your will and thought structures (including your judgements or discernments). Surely a conversation with your Self is better than a divine dictatorship? Contrsucting the latter more than likely invites forms of social subordination, ego-inflation and guruitis (as disciple or master) otherwise known as . To judge medicine as poison or poison as medicine is to live a dangerous life indeed.

Thanks for the link, the book looks interesting! Why should we not judge situations (and really, how can we not)? First of, without severity or judgement the world would have excess corruption and evil (and without mercy existence would be unbearably rigourous). Surely we can accept reality in its whole (acknowledging suffering, corruption, misery, oppression etc) without denying our bonafied will to take a stand for that which we feel is just (such as your (Roopey) values on actions that are 'best for the whole', 'humbleness', 'compassion' --- all great things if you ask me). To be in a place of non-judgement when in moral crisis is to dissociate (to not be associated with the situation) and is perhaps a kind of passive doing or allowing (an inherent association to other-than-the-situation). Isn't 'not taking a stance' a stance in itself? Saying "I have no judgement towards female circumscision in Kenya" is itself a judgement that implicitly says probably something like, "it is irrelevant to me", or "I don't care", or "I don't want to think about it", or "I know so little about it I fear to judge" (a judgement that there is lack of knowledge), and all of these are supported by an overall judgement that the situation doesn't require judgement. Why try to deny the fact of judgement? We judge that the table is in front of us when we go to sit for dinner, we judge the design of a garden to the sun and water resources (generally), we judge the man robbing the old lady, and we judge the elegance and grace of birds in flight (with our hearts). While some poeple may be (and are) completely unreasonable and corrupt in their judgements, judgement also allows freedom, love, beauty, kindness, compassion and all those lovely currents of life.

If you say that the apple is beautiful, then it is not not-beautiful, if you say that it tastes good, than it does not taste bad (to you). I'm not saying that there are ultimate standards of good and bad that transcend and inform everything. I don't believe that at all. But, it is obvious that in day to day life we are constantly performing value judgements (sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly) about what we feel is good/bad (or, to complexify the same logic with a spectrum: (ad infinitum) really good, pretty good, good / bad, kinda bad, really bad (ad infinitum). "Is it a good crunchy and juicy apple?". "It is crunchy but not juicy, so kinda". The question is how has morality changed historically, 'are we more respectful, dignified, and integral than we used to be'? Obviosuly these qualities may (and do) mean different things to different people, yet, in this online forum most of us have somewhat similar linguistic-cultural backgrounds and the differences in definition may become fleshed-out and understood in examples, such as, what do you think of the historic peroid when staunch male resistance challenged female social rights in the feminist movements (which included 'evolution' propaganda, violence, and social stigma)? To say that 'better' can mean anything is to deny yourself and the possibility of commincation and perhaps to stupify social life with an escapist relativism --- maybe to divert the reality that we are all called (sometimes condemned) to personally make some choices and value some things in life. The comparative history of morality is not an easy question, and of course I do not expect us to nail any sort of clear answer. It is more an experiment in contemplation than a hard science. And given the current rapid flux in population growth and globalisation (and social technologies) it is something real and pressing to contemplate. I think that the philosophy of morality is often so difficult for thinkers to engage in because it demands the philosopher to take political positions, which demands not simply logic and thought, but feeling, emotion, and often large amounts of responsibility. I once fully agreed with this, and I still do partially. But, i now think it is a little bit more complex. As previsouly stated, obviously there are no meta-narratives or godly standards dictacting any sort of ultimate right or wrong. But, we are constantly in positions with the world that demand us to say "hmmmm, i don't (or do) agree with that" (to whatever degree). For an extreme example, "I don't feel that that guy should bash and rob that old lady". This is not to say that the offender is absolutely evil or an absolutely wrong person. But it is to say "Bad!!!, stop that you weak fuck", and to take a politial position. Obviously this is not a limiting way of seeing the world, but an engaged way of being in the world. I fully agree that there is no one good nor no one bad. But in particular moral-crisis situations we are called to define what we feel is good, which is expressed in the way we respond (or don't respond) to the situation. And I'm not sure if this good/bad modus operundi is simply in the subjective domain. Yes we may each decide things for ourselves, but is it not also intersubjective, social or political? After all, we are pack animals whose whole is more than its parts combined. Humanity is now in an increadible globalising sitation. While our personal and particular moral perspectives should not rule the world's affairs (in a totalitarian absolutist sense) we are left soul-less and impotent without the right to bring our subjective morality to the arena of intersubjectivity. Or in the words of Fat Freddy's Drop "If you choose to do nothing, you take all the blame" ( this is a bit extreme but you get the idea). Roopey, much thanks for the stimulating ideas and demands of clarification. I think we may have crossed wires a tad. I am not proporting any absolutist definitions of right and wrong, nor simply asking for any, but I am asking for moral opinions and constructions of the past and present --- We may all have particular histories, in particular cultures, communities and families, but we are all part of the globe. Thus, a hermeneutic dialogue on morals is the quest. And exploring the moral views and actions of the "Other" (including the friend, the enemy, the neighbour, the politician, the primitive, the civilised, the superhero, the god, the angel, the anscestor, and the interdimensional insect) is to also enter the depths of the self and its position in the world.

Thought is nothing but simplified binary structures, metonynms, and metaphors, and theory is but putting these mental styles into a kind of poetic narrative. So, yes, thought works with black/white, is/isnt, and true/false structures, and don't these other colours you speak of have moral opposites to? We always decide (consciously or uncsoncsiouly) that something is good or bad, valuable or not-valuable, relevant or irrelevant, using a variety of standards and assumptions, do we not? I agree that technology may be better and more efficient in some ways, yet destructive and 'immoral' in other ways. However, is it the tech or the humans weilding the tech that we should put on trial? Or perhaps they reflect each other. Why not take advantage of historic records for insight into humanity? You say you can't trust people from 400 years go, but why do you take on board some of Plato's thought>>?? It appears to me that morals are relative to motivations and desires; the forces of will, power, survival, domination, freedom and success. I'm particularly interested in the nexus of where and how motivations are negotiated, what is the collatoral damage, or (in)equality, when morals are established and destroyed? For instace, the emergence of first wave feminism at the turn of the 20th century and the motivations of women to have more social freedom being meet with strong resistence. Or the the way that the 'terrorism' meme in the media over the last decade has activated certain racial, religious, and national morals, thus allowing certain political and economic motivations, not to mention murder, theft and manufactured misery. If we 'crucify the ego' (Roopey) too much people will eat us for breakfast.

I'm sure you could slap this conclusion to any question, but does it really say much, or anything, beyond a fun play of words? I don't agree that morals are simplpy illusionary. You seem to imply that all concepts are illusions, but then go on to conceptualise systems of nature. I tend to see mind and body as slices of the same cake, thus perceive the forces of organic/natural sociality (minerals relating to animals to geology to plants) as, in a way, particpating in and experssing unique forms of morality. If a river erodes a new direction for its livelihood then this is 'good' and/or 'bad' for the survival of certain life-forms that are nourished by the river. Or, nature conspiring to prove harsh conditions for minority species (such as Tsunamis' killing humans) is like governments raising business rental taxes and destroying independent shops and culture. Surely certain moral rules are conscious and some but not all are subconscious? After all, we are here consciously discussing examples of moral standards with examples ranging from the destruction of nature, war, religious principles to family honour...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnIJxcqSKgY

Given my time with the psychedelic folk-religion of Aus and the UK, where ecstatic 'mind-blowing' experiences and 'chasing visions' is often the name of the game, I've found some of the ideas by mystic and philosopher Jorge Ferrer (see below) quite liberating and grounding. Excerpts taken from Revisioning Transpersonal Theory-- A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (2002) Suny Press 'Mystical ecstasies, trances, and absorptions are neither the final goal of the contemplative traditions [buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Sufism] nor should they be equated with final liberation... most traditions warn that these mystical states are not to be sought for their own sake, but are usually a psycho-spiritual preparation to participate in certain special states of discernment' (p.128) -- in other words, to participate in special ways of knowing the world ('knowing' that includes transrational forms such as emotional, perceptual, erotic, and intuitive knowing etc). According to Ferrer, the trance-ecstasy states relative to each contemplative tradition do not equate to, or are not synonymous with, each tradition's doctrine of liberation. For example, 'The trance of cessation, culmination of the four formless Jhanas in Theravada Buddhism' should not be equated to 'nirvana'(p.129). 'Nirvana is objectless discernment free from the mind constructing activities and defilements (lust, hatred, and delusion) that is, the double knowledge of the destruction of the fluxes... and their absolute future nonarising' (p.129) 'The ultimate goal of most contemplative traditions, then, is not realised by entering any type of altered state, ecstasy, or trance, but by the overcoming of delusion and ignorance' (p.127). Ferrer is an adept of certain Buddhist schools, so there is perhaps some bias towards Buddhism in his arguments, nonetheless, I think his main point is clear. Trance-ecstasy ain't the name of the game, according to many historically developed spiritual traditions, but is one important part of the game -- and when taken on its own, trance-ecstasy doesn't appear to amount to much. Rick Strassman's famous studies, where he dished-up 400 IV doses of DMT each to 60 participants over five years, supports this claim, given that the participants showed no real life changes in the years following the study. People sometimes like to talk about 'integrating' revelatory psychedelic/entheogenic experiences (which I think is great), but, generally speaking, the moral and underlying assumption appears to be slightly wonky and missing the point. The world and mindset that psychedelic revelation is being integrated into is not considered strongly enough -- the relationship is lopsided -- and is therefore subtly tending towards (personal and social) dissociation or world escapism (Hence the warning from the contemplative traditions to not seek mystical states for their own sake). What do you think>?

Dang... Thanks for your help!! ;)

Can anyone identify this plant I bumped into on the streets of Westend in Brissy. I've got a feeling that it's salvia d. ???

The seeded 'berries' are throwing me off a little, as are the little White flowers? The stems are square in their total length with slight barbed fillaments running along the edge of each square section

In Aus, most of us have been subtly forced to 'dwell on', during the formative years of life, 'elaborate metaphysical constructions' of reality that create our society's highly individualised, anthropocentric, secular, and rather disembodied ('top-heavy' over-valuing of thought, a la Cartesianism) sensibilities. The potency of these realities on the phenomenological experience and cognitive processing of psychedelic experiences is undeniable. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you may be falling into the Cartesian trap of sharply splitting and alienating mind from body by imply that all psychedelics activate some pure or unified formation of experience (body) that transcends elaborate metaphysical constructions (mind). For the last 100 years or so this duality, as an analytical category, has increasingly been understood by the sciences as being dialectical -- that mind and body co-construct each other in various ways. Rather than being some ultimate unchanging viewpoint on life, it appears that encountering of 'pre-constructed viewpoints' during psychedelic experiences are predominately expressions of unconscious patters and conditions that are particular to the individual -- those parts of us that were once 'constructed' yet have gone-underground, beyond our awareness -- ie, our unique biographical configurations of being creative agents socialised through interpersonal engagement with particular families, communities, religions, schools, media giants, films (socio-historic and linguistic horizons). Given the realities of cultural diversity around the globe, there are obviously numerous possibilities for the construction of reality for human beings. Often what we take to be a simple gesture of reality is in fact dependent on a complex construction of reality that is unconsciously authorised or accepted by our previously socialised norms. "Is the wind a mechanical dead force of nature?" or "Is the wind alive and a person?". It seems to me that psychedelics (particularly acid, shroom, aya, pedro etc) allow greater contact with, and creative transformation of, the socialised unconscious processes that colour, shape and mediate our sense of given reality and our orientation in that reality. I wouldn't be so quick to separate 'psychology' or 'psychological power' from spirituality. But, in recent weeks I started to contemplate a similar thought that psychedelics are not always spiritual technologies. Perhaps in lower doses, like a tab of acid or a couple grams of shrooms, the highly pleasurable and humorous potentials of telepathy, synaesthesia, sensual poetry, enhanced cognition, and profound affinity with things beyond the self, may not be strictly 'spiritual' phenomena. But, how else should we broadly categorise the experiencing of them?... as participating in the subtle vibrations of a kind of electro-magnetic field that pulses and flows with the force of life?... Surely it makes more sense to welcome secular 'science', as the gone-astray narcissistic brother, back to his valued and indispensable position in the family of philosophy who all feed on the nourishing, creative and powerful flavours of spirit.