Pharmacological variety: spice of life or stumbling-block?
posted by EsotericPharma | February 13, 2011
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketI think one of the more important things that Neal Goldsmith (shameless plug-he is a friend. buy his new book!) points out about psychedelics is that it any therapeutic/spiritual benefit that we derive is not so much an effect of pharmacology, or, by extension, of the particular substance that we take, but rather a function of whether we achieve a "peak" or "mystical" experience. This is a lesson that would be well-taken by our community, I think, because we often give a great deal of consideration to the various minutae regarding the massively variegated set of psychedelic drugs we have at our disposal--and this is certainly interesting, all the more so if I can say that a methoxy group here tends to cause this sort of trend in the subjective experience, and it is this sort of investigation that lead me into serious study of the drugs--but to a certain extent emphasizing the differences between drugs can cause us to miss the boat, and variety of experience can cheapen the depth of the experience.
I've had hundreds of experiences with close to a hundred different compounds--but only a small handful of experiences that I would really say changed my life or my personality in any meaningful way. And yet for most of my psychonautical career, I've focused more on cataloging the diversity of the experiences rather than focusing on what made that small handful of experiences special. Looking at this now from my current point of view, in which I have made the conscious decision not to use drugs. this sometimes feels troubling. Might less, in fact, be more?
If the "point" of exercising with psychedelics is to have a therapeutically or spiritually beneficial experience--or even simply a recreationally enjoyable one--to what extent is it beneficial to focus a great deal on the specifics of the experience, rather than the "core" of it? I think we can all agree that the fact that someone had a profound and deep experience is more important than whether they had it on LSD, mushrooms, ayahuasca, DOC, 5-MeO-DMT, 25C-NBoMe, ketamine, or anything else under the sun. Doubtlessly, some compounds are more prone to inducing peak mystical experiences than others, some are simply more potent, some just seem to have more "juice," some are weighted down with powerful cultural context which psychologically encourages openness to such depth. Peraps virtually all psychedelic drugs have some degree of capacity to produce the peak experience, but some are certainly more prone to it than others ... different compounds have different virtues, certainly, but is there a need for as many compounds as we have?
Why, then, the great diversity of psychedelics that we use? Is it simple intellectual and chemical masturbation? Some drugs are more interesting from a chemical and pharmacological point of view than from an experential one, certainly. What is it, though, that drives the user to try so many different compounds? Is it a fetishization of the compounds as commodities, a collectors' sentiment, "gotta try 'em all?" Is it a search for the "perfect" substance with maximal benefit and minimal adverse effects? A search for the substance which we simply "like" the best, or that is the best "fit" for our particular preferences and needs? Is it peregrination from substance to substance to divert boredom? Is variety the spice of life? Or would we do better to focus on a few of our closest allies, and do deep work with them repeatedly, getting to know that particular space better and better?
What would the role of the vast and diverse pharmacopeia of psychedelics be when/if psychedelic therapy becomes a legitimized practice? Would we only chose a handful of the best and most useful drugs (especially if they had to get past FDA approval)? How would we chose them? Or would we rather have huge toolkits, and customize our psychedelic solution based on the subject's needs taking various criteria into account? How necessary would having these choices really be? How many would be necessary?
Excerpted from discussion at the Esoteric Pharmacology Project.
Comments
 http://changaevolution.blog
— Feb 14, 2011
 http://changaevolution.blogspot.com
I must say its a pleasure to know ya!
Ive asked those questions so often, while working with such a variety over the years, you look at your own motivation and why possibly that they are hear and what possibly that we can do with all of these in a future time.
the future is unfathomable... to imagine a time when these are all here and legitimate forms of medicine is hard to imagine. Would some be medicines, and other recreational? would some be only locally available, or do to laws or ethics on sustainability the only medicines we can work with in good conscience? or would we have such a large pharmacopia that we look at specific medicines for their results in the individual and the particular needs?
My own motivation in working with so many medicines over the years was to explore their possible therapeutic values. what did the most? what had the most to offer the individual ingesting it? Which had the most specific qualities that where the most effective in providing the largest variety of experience, and the most specific for very particular concerns.
This turned into as well personal preferences of course, but also what was the most ethical for me to work with socially and ecologically.
When exploring 2cb and its work in south africa, i started to wonder, it appeared that the traditional plants where getting harder and harder to find in south africa, as well as more effective. could green chemistry provide an alternative to filling the need that plants traditionally fill?
LSD comes to mind in this respect in that IMHO it fulfills most if not all of the psychedelic experience that other medicines have to offer. Even in traditional shamanic practice it can be worked with in amazing ways. LSD can be produced in incredible amounts from very little, when legislation allows. From a sustainability perspective as well as a therapeutic and even spiritual or shamanic healing point of view LSD is probably on the top of the list!
Whats interesting though is that legislation is what has driven us to discover so many of theses chemicals as well as plants, we have to be at the leading edge to keep up with criminalization.
hopefully-
— Feb 15, 2011
to stay ahead of criminalization !
Set , setting , dose and really good guides !
(rare combinations for +4)
" A rising tide - drowns those without boats " - Cee Are
"The object under your feet is always the dance floor " - Cee Are
Actually, this is a
— Feb 15, 2011
Actually, this is a relatively minor impetus on the development of new psychedelics. Most of the research going on that's going into the development of novel psychedelics is done by very legitimate scientists for whom the schedule of the compound doesn't really matter. The Federal Analogue Act antedates TiHKAL and PiHKAL, and most of what's in there are (now) certainly analogues, and much of the other work that is going on in the field is derivative from those two, even the more creative derivational like the furans and NBOMe-drugs -- probably analogues, again.
Low-grade stimulants in the UK, though, and now spreading to the US, there's another matter. People are foraging in the pharmacological literature for obscure, mostly forgotten, or even entirely theoretical, drugs, and churning them out in quantity without much regard for their health effects, dumping them on the market, and jumping to the next thing. Same thing is going on with the synthetic cannabanoids.
And a lot of that is pure tomfoolery. Most of the illegal stuff is safer!
I just -
— Feb 16, 2011
- meant I hoped we could stay ahead and not become subject to criminal sanction our selves.
to the 1st posting -
As Sasha Shulgin has pointed out long ago, the experience has never been contained IN the ingested substance.
The variability of the experience derives first from the variety of persons experiencing, where they are in their evolution, their mood, situation, needs, expectations, enlightenment or confusion. Beyond this "set" there are contributions of the "setting" - the environ of the experience, the space, area or place of embarkation, what is and is not present, the time of dawn, day, twilight or moon. Further variables can be fellow travelers, the presence or lack of an experienced guide, meaning one who has experienced some of the possibilities you are about to attempt. I'd mention dose, which while important as all things are potentially poisons in large enough quantities, but I've had +4's on serious under-doses when the set, setting and intent were near ideal.
I would disagree that the variety of experiences could lessen the depth or value of such experiences, altho that's just my results and I will concede that repeating large varieties of experiences without further insights or gaining wisdom can make prior peaks seem shallow.
I feel that we do need all of our allies, that we are still informing the universe of all the possible uses, that all of the plants and substances are required for our continued evolution and integration with our environ.
We are still all just beginning to figure some of it out. We'll get past the present blindfolded with both hands tied behind our backs senseless restrictions eventually. Then we will have a really huge set of tools for reducing the really huge sum of pain and hurt. So it's really only a stumbling block when it's made into one.
Just stop saying no !
" A rising tide - drowns those without boats " - Cee Are
"The object under your feet is always the dance floor " - Cee Are
