• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Societal stigma is persistent in certain regions and cultures

Migrated topic.


Ex Bioinspired and muladharma temporary account

I am looking for advice regarding the emotional cost of an interested and passionate psychedelic enthusiast in cultures that stigmatize psychedelic use.

I am realising or trying to consider, by the lack of evidence for the contrary, that in the past I was surrounded by cultures of psychedelic enthusiasts which very conditionally communicate their knowledge or become inclusive with others external to their group.

In cultures that have languages and practices more akin to critique, power hierarchies and polarising behaviour, I am wondering how those particular cultural currents integrate with the psychedelic communities within them.

Why does it feel to me (do consider me biased) that being endowed with early and easy access to psychedelics as part of a collective having a history of understanding them makes it easier to them to project a sort of superiority complex onto people outside their background? Is the growing speed of communication and connectivity which is smoothed by microdosing or semi-religious states enough to exclude virtually anyone not undergoing chemical-mechanical induction into similar patterns of thinking?

Do old experienced people undergoing long breaks or more ceremonial use feel that there is a cycle of collectives undergoing a seemingly empowering awakening only to later realise that the extent of their victorious revelation that ought to distinguish them as champions comes down to the same old, limited, not very solid human body?

Is it possible that some cultures naturally undergo a sort of ego-enhancement to protect their heritage of usage, by hypocritically accusing and being condescending and emotionally hurtful to people who ought not to be deserving of the passing-on for whatever reason, political, ethnical or socio-cultural?

Or to close the question, could societies affected by low social cohesion, lack of inclusive practices and participative discourse, suffer from these problems only as symptoms of not being able to perceive the cycles of gaining and losing influence through numbers, secrecy and a too high self-esteem driven by the same tangible divine experiences that probably spanned concepts such as divine rights and monarchies?

Knowing that psychedelic cults and tribes don't have to be the only such ones, as there are many other substance driven experiences that can cause significant enough perceptions to form collectives around, where does considering the other "not worthy" begin and where does it end? Are there groups trying to be successful "woke" elites having only "correct" experiences, who would only engage in the kind of dialogue that aims to discredit anyone unappealing, for the simple fact that the culture they reside in naturally embodies aggressive tactics as a clear marker of distinct social classes?

There is also an amazing contrast between the religious stances collectives officially take and the hosting of completely un-spiritual and near-sighted definitions of "socially acceptable", such as discussing these topics.
I will hopefully have time for a full reply later, but these are issues and questions that have been occupying my mind for the past several weeks.

I think some of it stems from "product of environment" elements. Cognitive biases are always at play, and by definition, are largely unconscious. Regardless of how much we try to think for ourselves and behave of our own accord, there is always an enhancement of influence from our environment now, and in the past that influences our present behaviors and attitudes. Learn to break these modes often takes a great deal of constant work.

One love
It is probably best to just shrug it off.

There is probably no group of people anywhere on earth, that is so completely enlightened collectively, that they are totally free of any kind of prejudice.

And we live in a time where group think has suddenly become very fashionable again. Probably also because of the rise of social media and the inevitable agitators who tend to thrive on such channels, like the former U.S. president.

I believe that, to a large extent, all of this polarisation is just a fad. It will probably pass again, eventually, because it isn't realy very sustainable. And too much of it is not grounded in reality.
You just can't keep forcing narratives on people. Especially when those narratives are not very consistent.

I know that there are some people who object to legalisation of psychedelics because they fear that it would normalise the use of psychedelic substances. Their main objection is that "ordinary people" would then start using these substances as well, and not just a chosen few.

Ofcourse they have a shitload of reasonings to justify such a weird position, ranging from cultural appropriation to patriarchy, genocide, fascism and a lot of other voguish terminology.

It's just a facade. There is not realy anything of substance behind all that elaborate talk. Except feelings. Wich ofcourse they are entitled to. But so are you and me and everyone else.

I know it's hard if people are basically insulting you personally, but i would try to just ignore it.
No matter who you are, there will be people disliking you because of your ethnicity, gender, age, color, job, sexuality, religion or worldviews, or whatever. That's just the way it is unfortunately.

You can choose to fight it, but i would advise, if you're not totally dedicated to invest a whole lot of time and lifeforce into it, to just pick your battles.
Top Bottom