Time: Sat Sep 20 15:13:18 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA09075;
Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:07:23 -0700 (MST)
id SAA24937; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:05:02 -0400 (EDT)
id SAA24910; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
id AA10714; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:04:57 -0400
by kerouac.deepwell.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 1997 22:05:06 -0000
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:03:12 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Psyberdude <dude@deepwell.com>
Subject: Re: SNET: SLS: Notes on the Christian Imagination
References: <970919153225_1652004882@emout16.mail.aol.com>
<3.0.1.32.19970919162716.006ecc44@deepwell.com>
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
At 11:56 AM 9/20/97 EDT, Marilyn wrote:
>
>On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:27:16 -0700 Psyberdude <dude@deepwell.com> writes:
>>
>......[snip]
>
>>It never ceases to amaze me that when people discuss anything but their own
>>particular religious belief system, they proceed to do so in an orderly,
logical >>and mutually diplomatic manner. But the instant that their own
particular >>religious belief system is brought out into the open light for
rigorous >>examination, and found to possibly be suspect of defective
reasoning, they yell >>bloody murder, and then what was once an opposing
opinion now becomes an >>insult.
>>Perhaps this is an automatic shutdown mechanism that the belief system in
>>question imposes on the believer, for to continue to rationally discuss
the belief
>>system, might lead to doubt, which may then lead to a change in belief.
>>This the viral belief system cannot tolerate, so it immediately needs to
stop any >>further examination of itself, and what better way than to
label intelligent >>discourse as being insulting?
>
>Well, dude, you have at least one person in agreement. The one thing
>that is becoming alarming that I don't remember in my lifetime (having
>always spent my time with people with all sorts of "beliefs" which they
>didn't foist off on each other) is that it's becoming harder and harder
>to find social support and what is now called "fellowship" outside of
>religious groups or groups organized around other specific "issues." I
>think this rigid socio/religious setup was true before the 20th century
>and it is alarming to see it coming back again since it was/is the glue
>of fuedalism and saw it's glory days during what we usually refer to as
>the Dark Ages.
Yes it difficult to find support for non-religiously based philosophies
outside of the rigid church structure. But then again, if you firmly trust
in your own ability to piece the whole cosmic puzzle together, than you
don't need any support. The "herd instinct" is very strong in the human
species, and it takes a lot of personal strrength and confidence in oneself
to 'go it alone', but becoming your own guru, is the mark of any true
budding God or Goddess.
>I worry a little about psychedelics and their effect on young people
>who's ego foundations are not yet formed and do have friends who lost
>kids to acid and other drugs.
I do not think that young children should use psychedelics because they are
involved in the delicate process of forming a stable ego. Psychedelics
taken at an early age could disrupt that fragile process. When a young man
or woman reaches the age of eighteen, the ego has usually had time to form
a very good map of the surrounding environment, both personally and
socially. At this stage of life, the young mind is properly equipped to
venture forth into the internal realms and make the discoveries that could
potentially bring forth a higher type of human, one who not only
understands how the unlimited universe works, but also feels the basic
connection between all life that he or she is part of.
>None of us in the 60s ever imagined the incursion of hard drugs in the 80s
and >90s and the effect they would have on kids.
Unfortunately, it is the incursion of hard drugs that ruin it for the
psychedelics. Uneducated people lump marijuana and psychedelics in with
heroin and cocaine
and proceed to think that they are ALL the same, and should be treated in
the same way. The DEA created this erroneous type of reasoning. They feed
the public nothing but lies about psychedelics, and the people just swallow
it all up like lapdogs.
>But I also know that there are many, many intelligent,
>accomplished, responsible and professional people who use marijuana for
>relaxation and may still do psychedelics on an annual celebratory,
>ritual or "retreat" basis.
Right. There are many people who are like this, and it really pisses off
the "just say no" people to see that certain drugs really don't destroy
lives and can actually enhance one's sense of well-being, and even
contribute to an increase in intelligence.
>Even though I've never done 'em myself
>(marijuana brought me down when I felt good and made me paranoid when I
>felt bad), it's not a problem to me. In fact, unless it's someone I have
>an intimate relationship with, I think it's none of my business. :))
>
>Marilyn
If more people had your kind of attitute concerning marijuana and
psychedelics, this world would certainly be a better place to live in.
Thank you for your interesting post.
===========
Just Say Know
===========
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Psyberdude <dude@deepwell.com>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail