GeospatialThinking
Ex Bioinspired and muladharma temporary account
Hello,
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 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.