Essay: Spiritual Exposure Therapy

[AshvinP]

The most in authority of the three - Roland R. Griffiths - was a professor in pharmacology of hallucinogens, himself a psychedelic user, as he describes (no bias?) and, a practitioner of no-self meditation, convinced that, quote-unquote, “thoughts are transient appearances of mind you needn’t identify with”. So, on the one hand, you criticize the no-self philosophy extensively (rightly so), and on the other, you are perfectly fine to utilize their philosophy, methods, and conclusions

This is incoherent. Why would we ignore research results simply because the author happens to hold a certain philosophical standpoint? In that case, we should ignore practically everything from modern scientific research since most of the scientists are philosophical materialists by default.

Besides that, as we have discussed numerous times on the forum, no-self and no-thought practices do in fact lead us beyond standard intellectual gestures and toward the threshold of spiritual reality. You were the one on the other thread emphasizing how we need to de-identify from verbal thinking, and this is true when understood in the proper context. I don't criticize these practices in some superficial and blanket way, as something to be shunned and avoided, or something that we can never learn from. I want to deeply understand their possibilities and limitations in the context of modern initiation and its tasks for humanity. They point to deeper insights into our soul-spiritual structure that can certainly be leveraged in service of our higher development, as long as we are willing to put in the imaginative effort to separate the wheat from the chaff on a case-by-case basis.

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA052/En ... 17p01.html

Perhaps, you could believe that I wanted to disprove these different epistemological points of view. I have shown what they lead to, but do not understand this as a disproof of the different points of view. The theosophist knows no disproof. He does not position himself only on one point of view in philosophy. Those who have dedicated themselves to a philosophical system believe that this is the absolutely right one. Thus we can see fighting Schopenhauer, Hartmann, the Hegelians and the Kantians from this point of view. However, this can never be the point of view of the theosophist. The theosophist sees it differently. On the whole, there is for him also no quarrel of the different religious systems, because he realises that a core of truth forms the basis of each of them and that the quarrel of the Buddhists, the Muslims and the Christians is not justified. The theosophist also knows that in every philosophical system a core of knowledge is that in every system, so to speak, a level of human knowledge is hidden.

It cannot be a matter of disproving Kant or Schopenhauer. Who strives fairly can be mistaken, but the next best cannot simply come to disprove them. It must be clear to us that all these spirits strove for truth from their point of view, and that we find just the core of truth in the different philosophical systems. That is why it cannot be a matter for us who is right or who is wrong. Who positions himself firmly on his own point of view and then compares the points of view with each other and says that he can accept only this or that, is in terms of philosophical knowledge on the same point of view as a stamp collector. The loftiest recogniser has not even ascended the highest summit of insight. Each of us is on the ladder of development. Even the loftiest human being cannot recognise anything absolute of truth, of the world spirit. If we have climbed up a higher level of knowledge, we also have a relative judgment only which always increases, if we have climbed up an even higher summit.

If we have understood the foundations of the theosophical system, it appears to us as arrogance to speak about a philosopher if we cannot position ourselves for a test on his point of view, so that we can also prove the truth of his thoughts like he may do this himself. One can always be mistaken, but one may not position himself sophistically on the point of view that it is impossible to have an overview of another standpoint.

[Federica]

The most in authority of the three - Roland R. Griffiths - was a professor in pharmacology of hallucinogens, himself a psychedelic user, as he describes (no bias?) and, a practitioner of no-self meditation, convinced that, quote-unquote, “thoughts are transient appearances of mind you needn’t identify with”. So, on the one hand, you criticize the no-self philosophy extensively (rightly so), and on the other, you are perfectly fine to utilize their philosophy, methods, and conclusions

This is incoherent. Why would we ignore research results simply because the author happens to hold a certain philosophical standpoint? In that case, we should ignore practically everything from modern scientific research since most of the scientists are philosophical materialists by default.

That's not correct. First, it's not "simply". I pointed to the arbitrary measure of effectiveness, which in the report is an increase of the level of "Openness" as defined and measured within the context of the OCEAN proposition (have a look). And the OCEAN verdict that participants were more "open" after psychedelic "therapy" is deemed sufficient to call the "therapy" "effective". Effective to achieve what? Effective in which sense? - as I already questioned. Secondly, here the philosophical standpoint and lifestyle are relevant indeed, in that the subjective belief system, and correlated lifestyle of psychedelic use of the inquirer, happen to be themselves the object of the inquiry. Don't you see an issue here? Contrast that with a materialist researcher who works in, say, Levins team and carries out some planaria cell rewiring. That the person may be a psychedelic user, and/or a materialist, and/or a non-dualist, and/or a panpsychist, or whatever, should have much more limited impact on their experimental work. And, in general, we should remember the difference between psychology as a human science (and here we are definitely within this field, as we can see by the use of such personality assessments) and the so-called hard sciences. So for many reasons, it's not at all the same thing as any result of scientific research. And by the way, we are always critically considering any scientific research results, looking into the meaning behind the gestures, more than into the details and measures in the results. So please look at the meaning behind the gestures here too, rather than into hyper-arbitrary results.

With this report in particular, I could go on and on with additional cautionary considerations, even only remaining within the same framework of the report. Have you read it entirely? If you did, you know that at every step, many different choices could have been equally made. From the recruitment method of participants, to their number (sic), to the control group setup, to the choice of assessment and questionnaires... This is to some extent the case in any experiment, but in this type of social psychology experiments (and in human science in general) it's x10, or x100. I mean, let's be honest. To say it a little bit harshly, and a little bit impolitely... these kind of studies are just an arbitrary patchwork of personal choices. But -- it's academia, so they still give you a neat publishable paper, with a few nice graphs and tables, and an actionable and quotable verdict: psychedelic therapy makes you more open, thus psychedelic therapy is effective.

[Federica]

In my opinion, the following is the "harmony with the infinite", "semblance of inner peace" - Openness, in the language of psychedelic therapists - effectively brought to man by psychedelic therapy:

The reason people do not want to know about the concept of Christ attained through spiritual science is because of a subconscious fear that, as soon as the Christ impulse is understood, it will arouse Ahriman's opposition. How can this ahrimanic opposition be recognized at the present time?

In the future it will take other forms. Today it comes to expression in the fact that we have a natural science and accounts of history both of which are ahrimanic and they consequently present cultural development and historical events their way. The very nature of concepts developed on this basis excludes the Christ impulse.
...

To understand Christ through spiritual science it is necessary to grasp the spiritual-scientific concept of Christ in the full awareness that all external knowledge—whether in the form of natural science or history—far from leading to an understanding of the Christ impulse actually opposes it. This opposition is there in anti-Christians today who, in contrast to mere belief, attempt to apply natural-scientific or historical concepts to the Christ event. It is essential to understand that there has to be an inner opposition because here two worlds are in conflict. We must enter courageously into the conflict between Christ and Ahriman. A comprehensive view of life will accept that the conflict exists and expresses itself for example in the fight between Christ and Ahriman.

I have often said that Lucifer acts in partnership with Ahriman. They work together. They both have great interest in deluding man concerning the necessity of this inner conflict. They therefore go all out to eliminate the realm that opposes them. To this end, they conjure up in man's mind ideas such as: “In tune, in harmony with the infinite.” Why do such mental pictures arise in man? They do because he is inwardly too much of a coward to face the conflict, and much prefers Lucifer-Ahriman to invent “harmony with the infinite” for him. However, it is an attitude that is the equivalent of going through life blindfolded, seeking only appeasement. Modern man shrinks from the many-sided battle to attain spiritual insight; this attitude is bound to call up opposing forces just as they appear when something right, which ought to be furthered is left neglected. It is because man, during recent centuries, has endeavoured to avoid the inner battle between powers which must of necessity oppose one another, that this battle assumes such a terrible form in the external world today. This consequence is as inevitable as the expulsion from Paradise was a consequence of the luciferic temptation. We see man today, in all spheres of life, being satisfied with creating a mere semblance of inner peace for himself. It is an inner peace which has a meaning only between birth and death. In so doing he prevents one side of the inner conflict to come to expression, of course that to which he prevents expression is always the Christ impulse. Thus the natural conflict has to find an outlet some other way.

Instead of overcoming the forces he necessarily must overcome, by facing them, man tries to avoid the conflict. This has all kinds of adverse effects. If one tries to avoid the conflict it will make its appearance in a different form. Nothing pleasant is prepared by those who strive to do away with the conflict.


GA 176 - The Karma of Materialism
3. Rhythm in Breathing and Cognition

[Federica]

Why is it that all of your comments lead away from phenomenological exploration They don’t. For phenomenological exploration over the last few days, see here and here,
which of course is extensively invited by this essay, toward the exact kind of abstract opinionating and argumentation characteristic of planar thinking, trying to establish rigid frameworks of understanding and find clear "right" and "wrong" answers? Nothing is more rigid than drinking the opinion that psychedelics are effective therapeutics and casually building it into the background of your essay, as if it was an obvious truth to start from.
You seem to have lost all interest in phenomenological understanding I haven’t (by the way, this whole section of the essay was drawn directly from Cleric's various insights re: psychedelics shared on the forum your drawings are only yours).
All of your interactions on this forum have become about 'proving me wrong' on some trivial point they haven’t, but I do feel obligated to take action in the face of the progressive dilution of your ideas, like whether exposure therapy is a 'new development' this isn't trivial, but the groundfloor of your essay, where you picture exposure therapy as a reaction to present-day over-phobia, probably (I am not 100% sure) to serve your apriori intention to upholster the armchair for JP to lord it over the concept of exposure therapy. This is not only rigid, it is prioritizing opinions over facts...,
and it's like you couldn't care less about actual spiritual development anymore I have never cared more about spiritual development. Though I spend more time alone caring about it today. Do you honestly think your initial questions showed any interest in deeper spiritual understanding that question in particular didn’t. I said above why I raised it, and you are simply a helpless victim
helpless victim is not really my go-to role (though I know you adore suggesting I think so) of my 'superiority complex' without any active role in bringing about these situations?



Improvisation
Epistemology
JP
Psychedelic therapy
Mystical practices


What else should we add to Federica's list of banned ideas?

I do believe that epistemology as a word-symbol will be relatively short-lived, in the grand scheme of things. Maybe I'll write something organic about it. There could be few more items on the list, for sure. And what about your bucket list of future phenomenological explorations, because "everything unfolding in the phenomenal spectrum is worth approaching"? I will not embarrass you. Time is short, Ashvin. There is some crucial work to be done, and it's a true pity to keep beating around the bush on for example these misguided psychedelic questions, moreover risking potentially dangerous indications to others.

[Federica]

Let’s recontextualize, Ashvin: you write an essay on spiritual exposure therapy and how this therapy, in your words, absolutely needs to be an expression of courage and volition. And your first example - paragraphs on paragraphs - of free, courageous, willed stepping into active thinking is…… psychedelic use. Come on. That’s spoiled. And on top of that, you call it a direct drawing from Clerics insights. You should remember that he wrote it took him years and years of delayed spiritual development to purge his mind from psychedelic boost and assorted mystical inflation. Please, stop pharmacological materialism, phenomenological microdosing of ideas and substances, deep case-by-case understanding of no-self possibilities, and please wake up. I would love for *you* to be back.

[AshvinP]

Let’s recontextualize, Ashvin: you write an essay on spiritual exposure therapy and how this therapy, in your words, absolutely needs to be an expression of courage and volition. And your first example - paragraphs on paragraphs - of free, courageous, willed stepping into active thinking is…… psychedelic use. Come on. That’s spoiled. And on top of that, you call it a direct drawing from Clerics insights. You should remember that he wrote it took him years and years of delayed spiritual development to purge his mind from psychedelic boost and assorted mystical inflation. Please, stop pharmacological materialism, phenomenological microdosing of ideas and substances, deep case-by-case understanding of no-self possibilities, and please wake up. I would love for *you* to be back.

Federica,

You say there is "crucial work that needs to be done". Do you have any interest in discussing those parts of the essay that can help us orient toward and do the inner work, or will you keep preaching to us about "pharmacological materialism", or whatever other flattened arguments you wish to make to prove you are right? Because if it's the latter, I will continue ignoring them. When you are ready to contribute something helpful to our inner efforts on this forum, not just venting your personal moralistic opinions about my essay choices, then I will resume as well.

In the meantime, here is a helpful quote to meditate on:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA156/En ... 05p01.html

A next stage depends upon the development of something I indicated in my book, The Threshold of the Spiritual World. We grow into the spiritual world as I have there described. The process is that we emerge from ourselves as it were and identify ourselves with another being. But this is not sufficient, in no way is it sufficient. It is necessary not only to be able to identify ourselves with other beings but also to be able to transform ourselves into other beings, so that we do not merely remain what we are, but are able to metamorphose ourselves into other beings, actually to become that into which we penetrate.

A good preparation for this faculty is to practise over and over again a loving interest in everything that is around us in the world. It is impossible to express how infinitely significant it is for the developing occultist to awaken this loving interest for everything in the surrounding world. This is a hint that is, unfortunately, not usually taken deeply enough, hence the lack of success that often attends occultism. It is only too natural for the necessary power of interest to be maintained only in oneself. Even if a man will not admit it, the necessary power of interest is applied only to himself. It may be given another name, but none the less there is very little real interest in other things, and by far the greatest for oneself.

It must of course be said that cosmic law decrees that a man must have interest in himself, and indeed it requires great effort not to be interested the whole time in himself. It is after all a natural part of life on the physical plane. I will ignore the fact that if we have some illness, pain or disorder, this interest is always there. It cannot be otherwise. In such a case, of course, efforts might make it possible for a man not to be interested in himself—but that is extremely difficult. It might happen that a man falls ill and is not especially interested in the fact that he has this illness; he may be quite indifferent to it. What does interest him may be how this illness has arisen out of the whole Cosmos, how at some point in the Cosmos something arose that now is within his own skin. In such a case the man is interested in a severe illness in the same way as if it were something outside himself I

You will admit that what I have described is very difficult. And so it is with most things, at least on the physical plane. It is very difficult to take the most ordinary things we experience in our senses and thoughts as if we were standing outside them as objects. But this is just what we must try to do. And because it is so difficult it is not as a rule attempted. But everyone may be sure that if with great zeal he carries out the exercises described in the book, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, he will gradually attain this knowledge.

But for this we must adopt the standpoint therein described—the exercises are not practised at all adequately. The knowledge will be attained only along by-paths because it is extremely difficult. It will be attained in the same measure in which interest in our own self decreases, so that we are no longer an interesting subject for ourselves, but an interesting object. That does no harm; it is indeed very useful because we ourselves are an object which is always to hand—only it must not be confused with the subject!

Now in the same measure in which we ourselves begin to become an object, we begin to be interested in everything outside us, and then we develop loving interest in the world and its phenomena. When the loving devotion to the world and its phenomena develops more and more, the mood of soul is able to intensify to the point where we not only pass out of ourselves but are able to metamorphose ourselves into other beings. Gradually we become capable of this. But such things are difficult for the soul of man and all kinds of help must be sought if this loving devotion is to exist.

[Federica]

Federica,

You say there is "crucial work that needs to be done". Do you have any interest in discussing those parts of the essay that can help us orient toward and do the inner work, or will you keep preaching to us about "pharmacological materialism", or whatever other flattened arguments you wish to make to prove you are right? Because if it's the latter, I will continue ignoring them. When you are ready to contribute something helpful to our inner efforts on this forum, not just venting your personal moralistic opinions about my essay choices, then I will resume as well.

You don’t need to keep telling what you will do depending on my behavior. Give your future self a bigger dose of freedom please. I am always ready to contribute to inner efforts on the forum. Whether this is helpful, doesn’t depend on me only. So I can’t guarantee it will be helpful, that takes at least two, but sure I meant to continue along the essay.

These are lurking fears that we normally don’t even suspect to exist within us. They steer our emotional and mental states from the dark background of soul existence.

Yes, these lurking fears are key to get to grips with. I believe we could be even more explicit and refer to the ahrimanic double in each of us. This double is at the same time the fearing and the feared in us. As in the afterdeath we will need to extricate ourselves from other beings, in order to perceive them, in this moment when we are still alive, we need to extricate ourselves from this fearing/feared ahrimanic double in the soul. In both cases it’s necessary to change scale of activity. After death, it will be by condensing, and now it is by expanding. The main difficulty now is that our entire spectrum of activity comprises these thoughts, feelings, and actions that belong to the double. So our mental pictures are a mix. I believe these concepts should tightly complement the phenomenological exploration. More in a second.

We have all inherited, for example, the foundational phobia of stretching our inner activity into the 'noumenal realm'; the domain of ‘things themselves’ that we imagine to exist on the ‘other side’ of our perceptions and thoughts. It is the fear of experiencing ourselves weaving with our inner activity in domains of meaning that are no longer tied to our bodily-sensory support (including ordinary memory impressions and feelings).

Yes, and as Steiner said, this is a fear of getting noticed by the Ahrimanic principle and attracting its attention:

"The reason people do not want to know about the concept of Christ attained through spiritual science is because of a subconscious fear that, as soon as the Christ impulse is understood, it will arouse Ahriman's opposition."

We can heighten sensitivity to this distinction with a simple exercise. For example, let’s count backward from 10 and feel out the experience. We first live in a certain wordless intuition of this intent. It acts as a ‘curvature’ along which our momentary vocalizations of “10”, “9”, “8”, etc. will soon begin condensing and recede as memory.

This is a very useful method to bring the intuitive background into awareness. Nonetheless, I think the crux of the problem is sensory perception. When it’s a matter of recognizing the intuitive curvature guiding mathematical inner activity, I guess Kant could agree. Those mental pictures are still on our own side. But it’s with mental pictures of sensory perceptions on the other side of reality that Kant (and the entire epochal approach he represents) remained stuck in the inability to elevate the gaze from the pictures. And that’s where the fear primarily resides also.

Once we penetrate a little deeper into this whole way of thinking as we have started to do above, we can sense how it could only be born from the fear of extending our inner activity into novel domains of intuitive meaning.

This fear can indeed be sensed, but it appeals to be qualified some more, not to remain a simple word-symbol for the negative act of exploring the intuitive intention. In this sense, I believe the thoughtful experiential step-by-step phenomenology you guide the reader through is very helpful and increases sensitivity. However, it speaks first and foremost to a materialist mind - which is primarily afraid of sensory mental pictures - but still on their own terms, experimental terms. In this sense, the fear is kind of left lurking, in a way. Maybe a parallel line of reasoning, that speaks more to the religious mind, the aspiring mind, should be intersected here. One would then take another route, through history, evolution, and Christ. This would be less experimental and more high level, but on the other hand, it would tackle the fear more directly. I guess this is not so clearly outlined for now, but I will continue soon...

[AshvinP]

This is a very useful method to bring the intuitive background into awareness. Nonetheless, I think the crux of the problem is sensory perception. When it’s a matter of recognizing the intuitive curvature guiding mathematical inner activity, I guess Kant could agree. Those mental pictures are still on our own side. But it’s with mental pictures of sensory perceptions on the other side of reality that Kant (and the entire epochal approach he represents) remained stuck in the inability to elevate the gaze from the pictures. And that’s where the fear primarily resides also.

I'm curious about this. The way I see it, the combined intuitive curvatures that drag the lawful transformation of our sensory images are the most remote from our intellectual scale of inner gestures. The most proximate to the latter are the mental pictures like the mathematical thoughts, with which we have much more intuitive resonance than the erratic buzzing fly, etc. In that sense, the first sphere of inner activity we need to courageously confront is concealed within our mental pictures, the lawful flow of our philosophical-scientific-mathematical thoughts. We can only reach the deeper scales that elucidate the lawful sensory transformations through the scale of intellectual and imaginative thought-phenomena.

As soon as we become more sensitive to these deeper imaginative gestures, on the other hand, we already begin to experience the sensory flow as more intimately related to our inner life and movements. The receded movements of our soul being are experienced as also shaping much of the sensory landscape that meets us, particularly those domains of the latter that are shaped by human cultural activity. These shadowy and selfish soul movements primarily keep us at such cognitive distance from the 'outer world', which eventually leads to us seeking the 'true cause' of our inner experience in some other reality existing 'behind' the perceptions. Once we confront the Guardian and illuminate these soul movements, then we already begin to know our inner life as superimposed with the inner activity that structures 'outer' phenomena. This is the most important step for modern humanity to overcome its fear of inner activity as we approach the soul-spiritual threshold as individuals and collectives.

[AshvinP]

Revisiting the topic of psychedelics, which I have been trying to contemplate more deeply as a means of phenomenological orientation to our spiritual structure and dynamics, I'd like to share this discussion between JP and Dennis McKenna (Terrence's brother). It fits in very well with the topic of spiritual exposure therapy. Particularly helpful is the section on the 'hierarchy of concepts' and McKenna's response, 'the reality hallucination'. There is also the later section on Carl Rogers and exposure therapy. (another great section is on 'impending mortality', where JP speaks about 'splitting the now moment' to reveal its implicit meaningful structure and mitigate the fear of death)





For more balanced and deeper orientation, it's also helpful to revisit this post by Cleric.

So what does the psychedelic substances do? It alters our bodily processes in such a way that processes that normally belong to the etheric (life) and astral (soul) spectrum are pressed into the physical. Imagine the meat coming our of a meat grinder. Deeper processes are pressed into our waking cognition and they squeeze out as myriad of sensory-like phenomena. This grinding of the etheric and astral spectrum into the sensory is what allows for our intellect to feel like it is climbing the elevator. In a sense it is like our higher self says to us: "Normally, every night upon falling to sleep you loosen your soul processes from the sensory slots but because the spirit has not developed the thinking gestures which are able to resonate with the processes of destiny's flow at that level, you simply lose consciousness. It's like not having the appropriate antennae to catch radio signals at certain wavelengths. Through the change of bodily chemistry, the sensory slots become more susceptible to the influences of the etheric and astral spectrum. Thus the higher nature of man begins to grind through the slots, coming out as a plethora of visionary phenomena provoking novel cognitive experiences. You can still walk the gradient of falling asleep, where the neural slots through which intellectual cognition is formed, blur beneath you. This happens every night upon falling to sleep but now it is illuminated, so to speak. Yet whatever you experience in this state where the intellect is no longer capable of laying down coherent trains of thoughts, is still comprehensible only as far as the appropriate spiritual gestures are developed, which can resonate with the dynamics of the higher strata."

In other words, psychedelics can indeed pump the etheric and astral into the sensory slots but we're still left with our already developed cognition to make anything out of it. As Terence McKenna famously said: Psychedelics Don't Work On Stupid People. In other words, the psychedelic substance doesn't give us the cognition - it only pumps phenomena into our waking consciousness. It is up to our spiritual activity to make something out of it. The richer our inner life is, the more we can make out of it. If we're tripping at a party, we'll have some kaleidoscopic visuals and twisted thoughts. If we have read and internalized some of Jung's ideas, when we encompass our life, we would spot strange higher order patterns. But all this is still basically an interpretation (divination) of ground down phenomena. It is indeed possible that in these visionary states we may even have some insight about the karmic landscape described above but ultimately this would be only a symbolic wall and the intellect will be asking "Could this be true? Is there really a karmic landscape, acting like a wavefunction for our states of being, or it's all a hallucination in a physical brain?"

[Federica]

Revisiting the topic of psychedelics, which I have been trying to contemplate more deeply as a means of phenomenological orientation to our spiritual structure and dynamics, I'd like to share this discussion between JP and Dennis McKenna (Terrence's brother). It fits in very well with the topic of spiritual exposure therapy. Particularly helpful is the section on the 'hierarchy of concepts' and McKenna's response, 'the reality hallucination'. There is also the later section on Carl Rogers and exposure therapy. (another great section is on 'impending mortality', where JP speaks about 'splitting the now moment' to reveal its implicit meaningful structure and mitigate the fear of death)

I remember that post from Cleric. As you keep the focus on this topic, you are doing more than simply deepen phenomenological orientation. Psychedelics are a trap for so many nowadays. Imagine if someone were doing posts and posts on porn, just to help phenomenological orientation, and deeply grasp why people are doing it. I am not saying that psychedelics is porn. But, I am saying that where you keep your focus matters. So I will again try to counter this choice, or, as yourself call it, this like.

***

I invoke the Guardian of the psychedelic grinder!

***


We should find that Guardian in ourselves. And if we don’t, we are simply taking a reckless risk, but not only for ourselves.
It looks like it seeks ego death, but really, the ego is more like idly swelled up, when it leads there.


Sensory reality, as everyone normally perceives it, is already ground spirit.
That’s all we need in the way of ground stuff, to try and sharpen our spiritual velleities.
Grounding soul matter, and etheric matter, into sensory splinters messes up the path back to soul and spirit.


We have been messed up enough, by Lucifer, and then Ahriman.
Now we have to respectfully follow Ariadne's thread, not to dynamite the labyrinth.
Not that, on even days, one is supposed to be deeply reverent, practice feelings of loving interest and awe in everything, and on uneven days it’s OK to dynamite the labyrinth. Blow me down.

PS: But sure, we still can and should try to understand why and how people find themselves in those gestures. The problem is: it's not that we "don't need to ingest psychedelics". Instead, we need to avoid ingesting them. It's very different.