Smoke and Bounce

2:08 am EST

"WORDS OR DRUGS?"

If we could suppose ONE reason above all else as to why humans resort to hallucinogenic drugs as a means of improving quality of life, what would that single reason be? I will propose a theory.

But first: Why am I singling out hallucinogens? Because: Drugs we call hallucinogens are the essence of the drug controversy, I think. They are the drugs associated with the greatest diversity of rationales to use; the justifications to use overlap with so many other sorts of psychotropics and run the gamut of "getting fucked up" to "chilling out" to "seeing God". By definition, all psychotropics, street or prescription or both, have something to do with consciousness and/or perception. For the sake of this essay's discussion I'm supposing that the "corporeal" desired effects are a secondary motive for the user. More bluntly, if you're mainly just trying to alleviate pain -- not explore pain -- well, then... that's pretty close to the nonlegal definition of "narcotic". A person may use a hallucinogen with no conscious intention whatever of narcotizing himself; and he may receive a narcotic effect supplementarily; and as time goes on, narcosis may become the primary motive (conscious or unconscious) for continued use, and the justification of altering the mind may become a cop-out or delusion. But ultimately, the pondering observer of the drug user (whether another man or himself) must accept the STATED rationale for the use in question if he is to dissect, appraise and discuss the philosophy of the behavior. That is, Take the user at his word and argue your case at its center according to his present claim. I would especially hope that parents and counselors heed this advice; on this count my parable might be: You're not going to take away your mushroom-eating teen's driving privileges only and correct his undesirable behavior successfully by forcing anything more than a short-term cost-benefit analysis on his part and hopefully some appreciation of the merits of "days clean" -- merits uncertain and debatable, by the way. If that were all, then what did you, parent, do to satisfy your child's original appetite for the drug with a sustainable alternative? Nothing. If his rationale or justification is a cop-out, then fine; so it's a cop-out -- but if that's what it is, then ought that not make it easier to argue against?

My apologies to Nietzsche, but I simply am still very far from the view that weakness and dullness are personally sought after by Americans. I don't buy it. I think normal people -- and drug users are normal people -- want to be strong and witty; able, intelligent, keen. Even in the pursuit stated as "getting fucked up", I maintain my case; for the spirit of the slang is fairly ironic. The truth is, drugs are done out of a desire to empower, embolden or enlighten oneself. "Relaxation" in this context (quite a popular rationale) would be better understood as "distraction" or "the aversion of one's focus away from a source of restlessness or inner strife and back towards what one has that is more amenable and for which one should be thankful". Put it this way: we conflate meditation with enlightenment for a good reason.

So; recapitulating... the ONE reason. The theory. I got ahead of myself with "empower, embolden, enlighten". And that's not a problem -- because these are all in the same respect, and that "what?" is ACCESS. And precisely, that is ACCESS to what words and images and music cannot give you. (Eject "medicine" from your mind at this point.) And that reason, that motive, is regrettable. Sure, music and the visual arts do historically have high turnover rates of edifyingness, and perhaps that's healthy, natural and appropriate for humanity and the humanities in many ways (arguable but tangential).

But the Holy Bible; the Ramayana; the Sermons of Buddha; the Upanishads; the Rig Veda; the Koran; the Tao Te Ching? These are not mp3's or BlueRay's. These are words; venerated by those attempting to live full and balanced lives, or at least acknowledged as heritage if unpracticed or not strictly applied. Moreover, these classics (and we could go on -- Beowulf; the Iliad?) helped themselves to CREATE the tongues of Earth! For example, Martin Luther is largely responsible for the lexicon of modern German. Furthermore, our interactions with our relations rest far and away more on the use of vocabulary than on the exchange of images and music (-- is that changing?). But language is becoming misunderstood, probably for not-at-all new reasons. We humans must work on our approach to ours. We must yoke it, yet then we must liberate it. We must master it, yet then we must submit to it. We must be skeptical of it, but we must trust it then. We must cut our lips upon its razor's edge, yet tickle ourselves with it as a feather. Mangle it, and caress it gently.

As I've stated before, tongues ought be "vigorous, dynamic and free spritually". [cf. Smoke and Bounce; Monday, March 4, 2013; 5:30 pm EST; "SURRENDERING TO BINARY CODE"] Words you'll find in an instruction manual on how to fix your dishwasher are NOT, I think, very good words to apply toward improving your relationship with your deity or your friends or your family. In fact, though hyperbole, what's the world coming to? if I have to assert that with a straight face?! And yet the spirit of the delusion so implied rings true. We've heard of the cliche "to say all the right things". That is a fool's errand, a perversion of communication, and an irresponsibility that can beget only lies and trivia. Conversation is not one big "sales-pitch" to get someone's affection. Words and ideas used for intended effect are essentially... prostituted. Persuasion is one thing, but if it is legitimate with respect to the human spirit, then a persuasive attempt can be expressed very much both variably and spontaneously.

But what have we got in America? We have linguistic utilitarianism run rampant; a fetishistic officialism of words; a ceremoniousness of "I'm right, you're wrong"; a canon of philosophical blasphemies and conversation-killers: "asshat" and "fucktard", or "liberal" and "conservative". Not only are we not learning what we ARE; I wonder if we're even learning what we ARE NOT. And in our despondence concerning this learning prospect, we are becoming lazy -- we don't have the means or inclination to make sense of a meme, so we click "like" or "dislike" for the frigid electron-mob to figure its value, and end it there and move on.

So now we've a parallel to discern: what do powerful, stirring words and hallucinogens have in common? Answer: They both CONFUSE us. They prompt questions and uncertainties. They prompt feelings of empathy, reverence, guilt -- to name a few.

So why is it, then, that habitual word-use produces skills in human relations profoundly better -- even if only over time -- than habitual drug-use? Answer: Because language is cumulatively complexifiable. Drug trips are not; they merely pass as memories of events, however memorable; and if their descriptions cannot be shared with others as non-rival goods, then even poets cannot develop them into real cogitation -- therefore, what good are drug trips? (Yes, I know Lady Gaga writes songs on weed. Still.)