Tag Archives: drugs

We Love Drugs. And other extraneous solutions.

Everything you know about depression is wrong from The Guardian.

Seems to me the simple problem is that no one cares to look to themselves for the answer. We are taught to look to what is outside for the answer to our problem. Perhaps when it comes to personal happiness and contentment, this method does not work so well, whether it’s that I’m told I need drugs or whether it is that my needs are not being met. At some point, perhaps, in another 40 years, when the ‘needs’ solution isn’t working entirely, we will ask just what is a ‘need’ anyways. Blame blame blame. Maybe that’s the problem?

Do you use intoxicants? 

Survey. Come on folks. 1/3 so far have said they use  intoxicants regularly. Really?  Btw: alcohol and marijuana are intoxicants.   Nicotine?  Anyone a smoker? 

 help me out a little.  Just in ‘likes’. If you use any sort of intoxicant as a regular part of your life for any reason, click ‘like’, and if you don’t and are answering this question, just click onto this post and I will get a statistic of how many people over all.  No personal details will come accords, just plain numbers, oh and what country you are in. That’s all we get.  
Of course of you want to qualify your answer. Please comment.   

Open Query: Intoxicants. 

We all know the problems that intoxicants can bring.

What are the benefits ? Are there any? Does any good come out of getting high? On whatever? 

Please give us your ideas and opinions. 

#benefitsofintoxication 
I think Until we investigate our assumptions about a thing, we will never really know it, or be able to get a handle on it.

Let’s start an honest discussion, one that is not based in embarrassment and bias. 

#questionassumptions

Drugs, Junk Food and Porn: The American Way.  

Thanks Henry.

LINK To the LA Weekly editorial.

drugs

 

(The title doesn’t really reflect the article, but it’s a good article.) 
interesting, I might add…

I am tempted to say that any philosophy which does not address at least one social stigma/problem, like drugs, bad health and porn, really probably isn’t worth considering.

Now, I say this even as I consider all sorts of philosophers. But, if anyone reads my stuff then they would most likely notice a certain dissatisfaction with much of whats out there. I think its all valid, sure. But what do most philosophy (and I mean Philosophy in the Big word of it, not so much the “I have a philosophy on computer programming”, or “I have a philosophy on feeling good about your self”, or “a philosophy of how to live better”, or any of those kinds. I’m meaning the thick stuff, the stuff that attempts to get at whats really going on beyond the philosophy of writing blogs and how to win friends and influence people.) — do? They talk about the ‘nice’ stuff; politics, pure ideas, the nature of things; basically very sterile notions. I suppose they think in this way they are thus getting to essences, like, they are distilling out some ‘purity’ of reality; Ill get into a discussion about distortion in an upcoming blog.

(I’m not really sure how I would qualify what the Big Stuff is actually. lol)

 

I am tempted to say that if a philosophical proposal is not considering intoxication then it is missing over half the possibility that it can be considering. I say this in various ways around different subjects; the philosopher that does not consider intoxication as part of the manner by which ideas may coalesce, either by allowing the possibility of others who use drugs, addicts and not addicts, to enter philosophy, or by actually getting high yourself, is necessarily short sighted and narrow, involved in a sort of ivory tower kind of philosophizing.

What I mean by this is that those who would place the state of intoxication, and the consideration of using drugs, as categories that automatically are less worthy as elements for a philosophical ontological proposal, are necessarily leaving something out on purpose, for a reason that is not logical. They are thus arguing a completion by virtue of a part, but a part that is not even Husserlian, and this for the purpose of putting forth a philosophy that is, by the purpose filled exclusion of possibility, real, in one sense, but more so a philosophy of… which, if the author is making any sort of ontological proposal, is thus a religious assertion, a possibility that occurs by virtue of an teleological exclusion, over what may be true of a possibility that would consider as much as possible.

Our issue is not political; national governments are already being understood as a kind of anachronism, and the context by which government will mean anything will evolve. Philosophers who are considering ontology within these parameters should make notice that they are no longer proposing an ontology, but more, proposing within an ontology and thus are making a religious apology for their ideological stance the position whereby and wherein they gain their real identity as a contributing member of society (do I hear Biblical paganism? What??)

Once we can begin to understand that such a notice is not a fault, but is actually merely a being honesty with reference to what is possible, then we might actually get somewhere.

Strangely enough, though, I don’t think this will ever happen.

Anyways; thanks again Henry for the prompt.

junk food _82620329_f0078240-iced_drink,_artwork-spl

soft porndrugs 2 1318488393222_ORIGINAL

Denial. Also the American way.

We aren’t living in pre-Nazi Germany; we’re in Imperial Rome. 

Delueze and Drugs. 

DELEUZE AND DRUGS: against the marginals’ conformismThe immanent molecular and perceptive causality of desire fails in the drug-assemblage. Drug addicts continually fall back into what they wanted to escape: a segmentarity all the more rigid for being marginal, a territorialization all the more artificial for being based on chemical substances, hallucinatory forms, and phantasy subjectifications. Drug addicts may be considered as […]
https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/deleuze-and-drugs-against-the-marginals-conformism/

I freely admit that I have not read 1000 plateaus very thoroughly at all I’ve skipped around here and there…

I think the reason is is that to me it feels like he’s on acid on LSD. Granted he’s probably not tripping at the moment that he’s writing, but it just seems to me, and through my experiences I have become more able to trust my gut on certain things because most of the time when my gut says something and I’m almost trusting it, it turns out that it was right. So with Deleuze it feels to me that he’s took some good acid, and of course that he was intelligent of course, and that he saw the hallucinogenic experience as an arena to investigate. If you’ve ever encountered anyone who’s dosing really good, The way they talk, their rhythm, cadence, their rambling their associations and extrapolations sound like Delueze’s writings. 

The problem with this is that everyone who likes D will immediately jump back in defend him from the accusation that he might have taken drugs. I wonder how many people doubted Freud because he was on cocaine; Hitler himself was on meth. By what criteria are we judging rationality, intellegence and sanity? It is kind of offensive to me that people are so offended at the mention of drugs when it comes to intellectual pursuit. We read Freud as if he’s some sort of demi god of psychology and conveniently set aside his more questionable ideas (such as the protogrnitor) and that may have been due to the fact that he was on cocaine . in one instance wesort through our ethical filters that which might have been influenced by cocaine from that which was not, or we minimalize effect that the drug may have had. And another instance we say that the effect of the drug was pervasive; we look at Hitler and we go oh of course he was on meth amphetamine.

 Further; We listen to music from the 60s and 70s and say oh yeah everyone was taking drugs and they made great music, but we only have the recording’s for the most part of their good performances. We listen to Iggy Pop and we don’t see some fucked up junkie that’s playing shitty ass noise, we here powerful and emotional, real engaging art. We don’t hear all the other hundreds of Jimi Hendrix performaces solos that really may have kind of sucked; we only hear the ones in which his solos are really good. The great thing about the Grateful Dead is they have all their shows recorded; but more than this and what the wonderful thing about the grateful dead fans are is they understand about whole experiences, reality drugs performances good bad fucked up addiction recovery, death life… with the Grateful Dead you get the whole thing. You listen to the shows when they’re all apparently really high and I can’t play worth shit and you listen to it and you go that’s fucking rad because they’re fucked up and they’re playing like shit. Then you listen to other shows and they’re just on it and you go fuck yeah! 

We read Deleuze and we see some super intellectual philosopher and we read him through the window of perfection: ” he couldn’t possibly be on drugs because drugs are bad and they make you sound like shit and they make you think stupid things”. These are the types of philosophers that we need to arm against; these are the type a thinkers that would have a stay in institutionalize norms well supposedly arguing against them towards a more progressive and better future, even if they do that; because many will honestly argue a D construction or some sort of analysis of gloom and doom. Both these kinds of extremes are playing the middle. They want to sound like they have such a great open mind but really they’re vision is limited and small, law-abiding. 

*

When you read D — aside from the fact that I think that he sounds like he’s on acid, or at least has had a good trip recently — he is talking about this very same thing in the extended passage that Terrence gave us. People want to take D through a “psychoanalytic philosophy” so to speak. They want to appropriate everything he says to psychoanalysis and the plane of psychoanalysis as D outlined it. But they don’t see it that way; and this is what D is really saying what is pointing out. In terms of D, they want to understand what are you saying by molecular without really applying the meaning of what he saying to their appropriation of molecular. They want to maintain their psychoanalytic identity and use the terms of molecular philosophy to stick their claim for reality. 

But back to my opinion of D being on acid: his works just sound to me like someone on acid. And I’ve had plenty of experience with LSD. If you haven’t then you won’t know and you won’t see it. And the thing is as D outlines in other areas of his work, there is no explaining to you how it is that I might have this opinion that he’s on LSD or has had a really good trip on acid and make you believe it. You will perpetually fall back into your experience of a general humanity in which your opinion of drugs are located in a certain offense. Only those with the most open mind will appreciate those who have had an experience that you have not had. I can’t proclaim to know anything about the American Indian experience, for example; I have to listen to them and I have to believe them and I have to trust them that what they are saying in a general sense it’s true even if it goes against my theoretical position of what is correct. Basically I have to allow myself the possibility to be wrong or at least lacking in some areas of intelligence. But when it comes to philosophy, for some reason everyone is a philosopher and everyone has equal access to philosophical things, this to the extent that there can be no exceptions; in the example of the philosopher who is never taking LSD, often enough that person will argue to the end to the reasonableness of doubt that he had ever taken LSD and stick to the fact that somehow he is intelligent without the need of drugs and completely missed the point that D is talking about with reference to the molecular and to drugs, but to psycho analytic posture in general.

It is interesting when you read D and G they are pretty much saying that only certain people will understand what they’re talking about; yet in almost every case everybody thinks they know what they’re talking about, yet everyone disagrees that is except so much as they’re involved in some sort of textbook reading about what they’re saying . And indeed once we understand the situation then we find that we understand the other philosophers of his time and the ones that came after him like Badiou and Laruelle in particular and the issues that they are addressing. 

Thank you Terrence for that little bit. The reason why I say also that I feel like D and G or too close to the event (philosophically speaking) is because they have to go on and on and on and on and talking about these aspects in a molecular fashion. Reality through the experience has degraded and fragmented to such an extent that all that is left is the molecules, molecules without context, and so they had to somehow assemble a sort of fundamental meaning that really their only gaining through feeling itself, through a kind of sensual appropriation, and they had to find a way to talk about it to create a context. But because they were so close to the event the context had to be described as a myriad of instances. They were involved in the experience of LSD and hallucinogenic’s most probably. And this is not to say that they are drug attics, but what they are saying really has given me an opening to talk about addiction and recovery. Because they weren’t drug Addicts, but we’re actually having a particular experience of the dissolution of reality. I think D here in this excerpt is really saying that the drug addict is confined by psycho analytic confinements, what I generalize to say real structures of discourse. Whereas if the addict where to see the molecularization of their situation, it might be possible that they wouldn’t be drug attics but would be nearly have an experience that pertained to drugs in a particular fashion. I’m not sure if this is totally true in the rough fashion I just put it here, but at least they took a step into philosophizing about an actual experience that isn’t the interaction of nations and political strategies and terrorism and these large ideological framings of power. 

The Latest in Human Ingenuity. 

In the real world of negotiation and mediation we just can’t introduce something with good intentions without having devastating bad results.  I’d say that is a damn good synopsis of the human condition. Think about every good thing in your life and then think about how much bad things you deny in order to have this good attitude up on life. I would bet there is an overwhelming amount of bad things in the world. That’s why we have to focus on the good things. That’s why we have to have fenced off neighborhoods and H OA’s. We have to institutionalize what is good and focus our vision on what is good. And then will let the fallout just happen — to someone else. 

Lol. 

Anyways. I’m not entirely sure why we need better pain medication. I mean granted we don’t want to be back in the Civil War times where you have to amputate someone’s leg or pull pull it out of someone’s gut with no anesthesia at all. But nowadays there are so many things that qualify as pain it seems it is merely correspondence with the need for more types of medication that takes care of pain. 

I think it would be interesting if someone did that sort of study to classify all the various types of feelings that people have that they want to call pain. I bet we would find that there’s really a extremely small amount of sensory experience that his actual pain that any sort of medication can really deal with, and that the rest of the stuff we call pain is really just based on this fundamental problem solution attitude upon life when we’re always addressing problems with solutions that are proposing to anticipate new problems even while their applied to pass problems.  Problem problem problem narrow your vision focus clearly on the good things fence off all bad things from the goodness. I bet most of what we call pain is just maladaption, variations of traditional and familial manners of dealing with what is proposed as a righteous life. The perpetuation of sickness where is otherwise there would be health. 

OK im preaching and I’m way too sarcastic; anyways here’s a repost: 

Horse tranquilizers in a deadly chemical zoo: The newest theat to America’s opioid crisis

When it comes to new “miracle” drugs, all that glitters is NOT gold. Drugs that can induce addiction usually turn out to cause more harm than good.  Scientists are constantly synthesizing new and powerful substances capable of altering the way our central nervous systems function. Yes, there are obviously benefits and a potential upside to these new drugs – but there […]
http://youreworththefight.com/2016/10/03/elephant-tranquilizers-a-new-threat-in-americas-deadly-opioid-crisis/

Bad Taste.

Wow.  Who’d a thunk.  Quite interesting:  

If I might start. Keep in mind, I am interested in a variety of topics concerning intoxication, and not only recovery. But I will start with this observation. With the whole ‘drug epidemic’ it might seem to some distasteful to start a blog that has to do with talking about drugs, as if I am […]

https://drugworldblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/bad-taste/