XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: tattooz@frontiernet.net   
      
   Bong Hits.   
   "cybrwurm"  wrote in message   
   news:100f5v6pmcfq2e7@corp.supernews.com...   
   > +   
   > / Topic >  Re: Why Pot? Why Not? #3 / 16 January 2004 / NGZ:   
   > / alt.politics.marijuana,talk.politics.drugs,alt.philosophy /   
   > .   
   >   "Protagoras' notion that judgments and knowledge are in some   
   >   way relative to the person judging or knowing has been very   
   >   influential, and is still widely discussed in contemporary   
   >   philosophy." -- from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy   
   > .   
   > >> wurm previously wrote:  The desire to 'change your   
   > >> mind', in the sense of experiencing altered states of   
   > >> consciousness, is both normal and healthy. Using drugs is   
   > >> one way of doing this, but of course there are many methods   
   > >> and techniques for accomplishing this goal that don't   
   > >> require booze or dope (eg. meditation, art, music, etc).   
   > .   
   > > On Jan10 Dan Day replied: How the hell is meditation, art,   
   > > music, etc. "altered states of consciousness"?   
   > .   
   >  da wurm sayeth: In some people these things can have a dramatic   
   > effect on the mind. 4X, there are well documented cases of Indian   
   > holy-men who can enter a meditative state and actually slow down   
   > the rate at which their heart beats. Four or five beats per   
   > minute is an amazing feat for something so nebulous as an altered   
   > state of consciousness! Art and poetry have also been known to   
   > cause extreme reactions in some people; 'Starry Night' has even   
   > put a few very sensitive people into a hypnotic-like trance   
   > wherein the painting seems to "come alive".   
   > .   
   >  As for music ... Have you ever seen the movie 'Amadeus'? There   
   > is one scene there where Antonio Salieri ("a successful court   
   > composer driven mad by the revelation of his own mediocrity when   
   > compared to Mozart's God-given genius") snags a freshly written   
   > composition and begins to read it. After a while he goes into   
   > what can only be called an ecstatic state of mind, where the   
   > music completely carries him away. The interesting thing about   
   > this is that there was no actual physical stimuli (ie. sounds)   
   > present. The note-symbols on the page were quite enough to   
   > transport him far out of his "normal consciousness"!   
   > .   
   >  I can appreciate this because I have myself experienced some-   
   > thing similar (on very rare occasions (but not lately)) while   
   > listening to music from people like Yes, Klaatu, Alan Parsons   
   > Project, Moody Blues, etc. Of course, such rarified states   
   > don't last for long, but there's no mistaking them for our   
   > ordinary state of mind.   
   > .   
   > > Except under the influence of a drug, consciousness   
   > > is all the same.   
   > .   
   >  I think it would be far more correct to say that consciousness   
   > is *never* the same: it is always changing, always responding   
   > to the world around us, to the thoughts we have, and to our   
   > internal condition (eg. emotions). Even something so mundane   
   > as a good meal can change our consciousness.   
   > .   
   > >> Smoking pot is merely one of the easiest ways of changing   
   > >> your mind. And since it is relatively mild, and relatively   
   > >> temporary, and relatively safe as well, in comparison with   
   > >> 'hard drugs',   
   > .   
   > > This is an inconclusive statement. It is like asking "Would   
   > > you rather die quickly or die very slowly, painfully while   
   > > you're screaming like crazy?" The comparison of two wrongs   
   > > doesn't make the lesser one right.   
   > .   
   >  Your logic escapes me. Death and pain have nothing to do with   
   > it, therefore your judgment of 'two wrongs' has no basis in   
   > fact, but is merely an assumption on your part. You should, at   
   > the very least, try smoking a joint or two just so that you'll   
   > have some small idea of what your talking about.   
   > .   
   >     
   > .   
   > >> The experience of 'nothingness' is a pervasive one in a   
   > >> childish and dissolute society such as ours, and while   
   > >> pot cannot of itself cure this spiritual condition, it   
   > >> can at least provide some temporary relief.   
   > .   
   > > So what?   
   > .   
   >  So that's a good thing.   
   > .   
   > > Relief neither solves the problem, nor does it ever   
   > > improve the situation.   
   > .   
   >  It doesn't solve the problem, but it *can* improve the   
   > situation somewhat by making the daily grind bearable.   
   > .   
   > > If one needs to relax from a situation, the alternatives   
   > > are better (e.g. sleep)   
   > .   
   >  Pot can help some people sleep.   
   > .   
   > > which one is at least able-minded that they can work out   
   > > their problems and solve them.   
   > .   
   >  Your insensitivity (and grammar) is appalling! Some problems   
   > are impossible to "solve", Dan; especially this one. It's more   
   > a matter of learning to live with it. Ignoring it is out of the   
   > question. Falling victim to it is easy. Depression and suicide   
   > are often the end result of a losing battle with nothingness.   
   > Struggling against it day after day after day is very difficult.   
   > If it can be shown that marijuana alleviates such suffering,   
   > would you still be so quick to condemn it?   
   > .   
   > > Pot (and any other drug) takes away that ability of   
   > > critical-thinking.   
   > .   
   >  This is simply not true, Dan. One of the most famous   
   > philosophers of the last century, JP Sartre, was quite fond of   
   > dope. And there are plenty of good critical-thinkers in these   
   > ngz. Pot doesn't seem to have taken away anything from them.   
   > If anything, pot can help us solve problems by allowing us to   
   > think about things in new and novel ways. A simple change of   
   > perspective can often yield surprising results.   
   > .   
   > >> This reason would then fall under the category of the   
   > >> medicinal use of marijuana. But since most doctors are   
   > >> shameless slaves of the established system, it is unlikely   
   > >> that any of that lot would ever dare to approve pot-use   
   > >> to this end.    
   > .   
   > > "most doctors are shameless slaves of the established system"   
   > > ... sounds more like a Marxist critique if anything, but   
   > > albeit a poor one.   
   > .   
   >  Actually, it's just a simple observation. Doctors have too much   
   > to lose if they dare to buck the system, and everything to gain   
   > by supporting the status quo. They are the very opposite of a   
   > Marxist revolutionary.   
   > .   
   > > Is it that you just listen to the opinions of those   
   > > doctors that approve of pot   
   > .   
   >  I've never actually seen such a creature; although I suppose   
   > that there must be a few doctors with a modicum of common sense.   
   > .   
   > > and turn away from those who don't and call them "slaves"? It   
   > > is pretty hypocritical of you to criticize anti-pot smokers   
   > > for being one-sided but then turning around and doing the same.   
   > .   
   >  What's the problem? There are two sides to this issue: pro and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)