A recent articles, brought to my attention by the lovely io9 (http://io9.com/5617273/two-new-scientific-studies-reveal-hallucinogens-are-good-for-your-mental-health), discussing the psychiatric applications of ketamine and LSD bring me back to my earlier post on nootropics, which I had promised to expand.
It amuses me to see in retrospect how the tone of the entries surrounding the entry on nootropics directly correlates to the types of sensations which are discussed in the review article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n9/abs/nrn2884.html).
Skeptics of artificially changing our brain chemistry would be quick to invalidate any these musings incurred "under the influence." However, since when has evolution always been right? In other words, why should we trust that our natural brain chemistry is optimal?
Prior to recent years, our intellect's heavy focus on the ego served us very well. It ensured that we and our offspring prospered. But now that we are more or less safe from the cut-throat existence of our ancestors, the predilections of this selfish character are literally killing us as a species. Homo sapiens' inflated ego has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Indeed, many of our other given attributes have proven less than sufficient (a fact we are generally willing to admit and medicate), why should we not try to fine tune our heads? As creatures who have gained the evolutionary edge from our brain-power, perhaps it is our hubris which stands in our way, a psychology of previous investment. After all, we have spent eons working out our neurophysiology to this point. But this mindset is a general delusion pervading too many of our institutions, masquerading as a love of progress.
We forget that progress is not linear. Sometimes we take a wrong turn, technologically, sociologically, agriculturally, etc. Like us, evolution is not entirely rational, and what works in the short term will not always work out in the long term. (I speak here of our dependence on fossil fuels, personalized transportation habits, urban planning, and agricultural...well, disaster.) We should be probing out in all directions, not hurtling out towards the first one which yields promising results, keeping our eyes closed and fingers crossed that things continue on the way they have.
Perhaps, our lives are still too short, and our experiences too telescopic, for us to fathom on a daily basis how long a species lives and the permutations on such a life which are possible. Which is why I am so pleased (!) that the aforementioned research results (which have really been known for decades) are finally coming in fruition in literally, THE most well-renowned scientific journals.
The review article in Nature provides a chart for assessing "altered states of consciousness." However, like Stanislav Grof (read this interview http://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/404/across_the_universe), I clench at the term "altered" to describe these states, which are entirely achievable without drugs, as well as with their aid. States which would benefit all people such as insightfulness, experience of unity, and blissful states, and other states which many others have an innate curiosity towards experiencing like elementary visual alterations, audio-visual synesthaesia, vivid imagery, and changed meaning of percepts.
In addition to the obvious benefits of insightfulness, experience of unity, and blissful states, which have the potential for creating more peaceable human beings, I believe that there are real advantages to experiencing the "secondary" perceptual effects of these "non-ordinary" states.
The human mind longs to feel different, and experience things differently. Altering input and processing is like exercise for the brain. Who doesn't want a limber brain?
No comments:
Post a Comment