Odds and Ends > Etcetera

Using Sacred Medicines like Ayahuasca: When is it appropriate?

<< < (12/12)

kahtboosted:
Well I didn't wanna nitpick too much further about the points you were trying to make because we could go on and on forever. But I think it is mostly clear that entheogens like Ayahuasca are a 'cultural property' to the tribes/cultures it comes from. I'm pretty sure Ayahuasca is actually two different ingredients mixed together, so it's like a cultural recipe. The use and supposed benefit of this mixture are also defined by that culture (and its particular assumptions or understanding). So no matter how I look at it, I think it is robbing those cultures to use it. It's not just appropriating a sacred plant, it's even appropriating an entire process and recipe, of blending things to make a mixture deemed sacred by the culture who invented this mixture.

I have not read about each different entheogens, but I think the way that 'psychadelics' and entheogens are defined by anthropologists, new-agers, etc (the 'white-think world') has been to lump them all together as supposedly sacred or healing tools, etc. But I have doubts that they will hold a great benefit for people not brought up in the cultures which use these substances and define them as healing. Only new-agers, anthropologists and white-thinkers try to define spirituality or ethnobotany in 'universal' ways. The very idea of certain substances being beneficial for certain things is not always something which can be taken out of context, because the very idea of it being useful is culturally defined. So I do not assume these substances will hold a benefit for people of just any culture. It is problematic to assume these things are 'psychadelic medicines' which can be utilized within modern healing modalities.

If one is going to appeal to modern modalities for taking entheogens out of context, they will need extensive modern research with double-blind studies showing that there is even a valid form of 'psychadelic medicine' good for treating specific problems. One would need to draw the justification from the modern paradigms, not assuming these things are 'medicine' just because some culture (who has nothing to do with modern modalities or 'frontline' approaches) claims it is helpful for something. If the modern therapy drew a justification from Indigenous cultures for using 'psychadelics' it is blatant appropriation. This is not congruent with supposedly being concerned for how cultures feel about their sacred traditions being stolen and taken out of context. Traditional cultures do not need to back up their own traditions with modern studies because they have not appropriated mainstream modalities or claimed that they justify their own medicines. The basis of modalities which treat modern society is science, and before making claims there should be evidence of effectiveness, not appropriating claims.
It seems to me the last thing we need in this ignorant supremacist modern society is people spreading around more 'psychadelics' and calling it 'medicine'. But if a few individuals claim to be having positive experiences with them, I'm not going to be the 'spiritual police' and call them a liar. I just hope they don't promote others doing as they are doing.

Thyme4Mind:

--- Quote from: kahtboosted on April 12, 2015, 10:25:02 pm ---Well I didn't wanna nitpick too much further about the points you were trying to make because we could go on and on forever. But I think it is mostly clear that entheogens like Ayahuasca are a 'cultural property' to the tribes/cultures it comes from. I'm pretty sure Ayahuasca is actually two different ingredients mixed together, so it's like a cultural recipe. The use and supposed benefit of this mixture are also defined by that culture (and its particular assumptions or understanding). So no matter how I look at it, I think it is robbing those cultures to use it. It's not just appropriating a sacred plant, it's even appropriating an entire process and recipe, of blending things to make a mixture deemed sacred by the culture who invented this mixture.
--- End quote ---
I agree wholeheartedly. In my post about analogs I mentioned this briefly, that the process of combining DMT and an MAOI is inherently intellectual property in itself.



--- Quote ---I have not read about each different entheogens, but I think the way that 'psychadelics' and entheogens are defined by anthropologists, new-agers, etc (the 'white-think world') has been to lump them all together as supposedly sacred or healing tools, etc. But I have doubts that they will hold a great benefit for people not brought up in the cultures which use these substances and define them as healing. Only new-agers, anthropologists and white-thinkers try to define spirituality or ethnobotany in 'universal' ways. The very idea of certain substances being beneficial for certain things is not always something which can be taken out of context, because the very idea of it being useful is culturally defined. So I do not assume these substances will hold a benefit for people of just any culture. It is problematic to assume these things are 'psychadelic medicines' which can be utilized within modern healing modalities.

If one is going to appeal to modern modalities for taking entheogens out of context, they will need extensive modern research with double-blind studies showing that there is even a valid form of 'psychadelic medicine' good for treating specific problems. One would need to draw the justification from the modern paradigms, not assuming these things are 'medicine' just because some culture (who has nothing to do with modern modalities or 'frontline' approaches) claims it is helpful for something. If the modern therapy drew a justification from Indigenous cultures for using 'psychadelics' it is blatant appropriation. This is not congruent with supposedly being concerned for how cultures feel about their sacred traditions being stolen and taken out of context. Traditional cultures do not need to back up their own traditions with modern studies because they have not appropriated mainstream modalities or claimed that they justify their own medicines. The basis of modalities which treat modern society is science, and before making claims there should be evidence of effectiveness, not appropriating claims.
--- End quote ---
Psychedelics show a lot of promise and there are actually numerous trials which show their efficacy in treating a wide range of psychological disorders both ongoing and from the past. Psychedelic research is a legitimate field of study and it started, primarily, with the discovery of LSD. LSD was used as an experimental tool for couples therapy and substance addiction with an unprecedented success rate before it was made illegal to manufacture or possess. Psychedelic research has been illegal since the late 60's which has made it extremely hard to try and prove that these substances are in fact useful tools for a wide variety of applications. Only recently has that door been opened (slightly) again. There are ongoing trials and double-blind tests for LSD and psilocybin. Both show promise for treating terminal patients with end of life anxiety, PTSD, substance addiction, and depression. I feel your concern, but frankly the information is out there if you want to find it. I can say from personal experience, and I know this may not count for much, that psychedelics dramatically changed my life and continue to offer me new and useful perspectives and I don't think they deserve the taboo that they are so often associated with. It's unfortunate that psychedelics have been high-jacked by white new agers but I don't think that this detracts from their medical potential in the slightest. Just my opinion.



--- Quote ---It seems to me the last thing we need in this ignorant supremacist modern society is people spreading around more 'psychadelics' and calling it 'medicine'. But if a few individuals claim to be having positive experiences with them, I'm not going to be the 'spiritual police' and call them a liar. I just hope they don't promote others doing as they are doing.
--- End quote ---
I dont disagree with you here at all. I think psychedelics in the wrong hands can cause much more harm than good and often times their use tends to lead to a lot of self-righteous behavior. Interestingly enough, I personally feel like when they are used properly psychedelics can help to facilitate experiences that actually dismantle white supremacy and other oppressive patterns of behavior. I don't think this is the norm because these substances are not usually ingested in this context, but with these kinds of drugs the context is everything; the context is what defines the experience. So for me it's all about context and making sure that our use of psychedelics is in line with our set goals, whether that be the dismantling of white supremacy or coming to know God. We don't have to appropriate indigenous medicines to use psychedelics in a positive way, I really don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I appreciate your thoughts; these are just some of mine.

I'm going to step back from this thread for a while because it is eating up too much of my time and it doesn't seem very useful or relevant at this point. I'll happily respond to any questions/statements directed towards me but otherwise I'll just keep up with posts to hear others thoughts.

Thanks everybody.

kahtboosted:
I do see where you are coming from, and perhaps one can even argue it would be ignorant to entirely rule-out any possible therapeutic benefits of 'psychadelic'/'entheogen' substances (especially the naturally-occurring ones). Complete rejection of something as being of no value without looking into it, that's a pretty traditional white habit. But I'm still doubtful of anything highly promising in this area, enough to constitute there being a basis for a modern term like 'psychedelic medicine'. I don't know what studies do exist, or how they were conducted, or what research is currently under way, but I'll make a note to possibly learn/research more about it sometime.

I'm sure some people have had positive experiences with 'psychadelics', as I'm not gonna say they are all liars. But it really seems impossible to set up an environment or context to ensure people will have a positive experience (even if the substances were shown to be helpful for certain conditions). We are talking substances that give people a drastically altered sense of reality, experiences that many end up interpreting in spiritual or mystical terms. Some people have 'bad trips' and experience extreme depression, etc, and we can't just say environment/setting can prevent that. That can never be safely applied to a mainstream modality, or a clinical setting without major risks. It could never happen, and should never be attempted by anyone who cares about their patients truly (even if research shows some people improving conditions with these experiences). It would end up being like other dubious pseudo-therapies such as hypnotism, etc which claim to help some people, but in reality also run a high risk of leading people further into delusions.

On the other hand, meditative practices may be promoted for 'self-development' safely, and I've read that many western therapists are beginning to reccommend meditation for things like anxiety, depression, etc. And there is no risk of being stuck in several hours of a scary, altered reality (and possibly terrible experience) from meditative practices, established evidence-based therapeutic modalities, etc.

Psilocybin mushrooms grow like crazy where I live, every fall you can see big patches of them, and even see lots of people crawling around and picking them. I have no need to pick them or ingest them, but I do find it hypocritical that people keep going to jail for picking/possessing them. I could walk a couple blocks away and harvest local poisonous plants (which can easily kill a person), and it would not be illegal to possess it. I'd say people like you who wish to alter your mind-state should at least be allowed to explore psychadelic substances legally, as long as it is not ripping off a culture/tradition. But this society does not offer that freedom, and in fact people are still fighting for even the right to possess medical marijuana, which has already been shown consistently helpful for certain symptoms. The legalization, let alone endorsement of psychadelics, is not going to happen.

Thanks for a very interesting discussion. Despite any disagreements, I enjoyed this thread as food for thought, even if it does at times reach beyond the scope of what NAFPS forum is really about.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page