The truth and the reality of psychedelic mental health treatment

link.medium.com/YSzEWeYQPvb

—- I have added some more, read on !!

At first glance, think Brave New World.

Often in the context of psychedelics we hear calls to include indigenous and marginalized cultural considerations in the historical and traditional use of psychedelic substances. While I agree with this sentiment, I am not sure it fully grasps what is occurring with psychedelics as a real substance involved with human beings.

For those who know, psychedelics are inherently non-conventional. They are substances that, left to their own, disrupt and reconsolidate. In fact, this is the very reason why psychedelics are moving towards being accepted as a viable treatment for mental health concerns.

The Two Routes in Mental Health Interventions.

There are only two routes along which an intervention into mental health issues occur:

  1. The Fix It approach. This approach is the modern psychological approach. It is the medical approach. Something is seriously wrong with the person and we need to fix it.
  2. The Develop It Approach. This approach comes at issues as they are inherent to growth of the individual.

The issue of psychedelics in the treatment of mental health issues bring to light a new type of relationship of things.  What I refer to as a concern which centers orientation upon objects. 

Many problems arise due to the failure to recognize how things are related in truth, which is to say epistemologically, but like wise universally.  The failure can be generally reckoned as the problem with the fix it model, and it by this model that the usual “cultural-traditional” rebuttal to the “commercialization” of psychedelics find purchase to thereby fail to recognize the relationship involved in the psychedelic experience itself.

The psychedelic experience itself, as an experience, is not centered in real content. The ‘fix it’ model is about material content. That is, the idea of the failure to recognize the contribution of traditional-indigenous-cultural contexts around intoxicating substance needs to be corrected because it is inherently wrong, is centered in the ‘fix-it’ model.  We need to fix peoples (institutions, capitalists, scientists, psychology, etc…) views upon psychedelics. The relationship of things is assumed to be within an “either/or” model, or, either an ‘either or modern’ or a ‘relational/intersectional’ model. This is to rely upon a basic difference in relationship that reifies that relationship, as a thing itself, cannot be known but can only be known by the content it gives to knowing, i.e. a relationship must be this or it must be that. Never may a relationship be what it is in reality, that is, it must always be a subject of negotiation.

The idea of the relational both suffers likewise from the ‘fix it’ model, since when we come upon the both/and, often enough we have sublated the either/or method to have that opinion and miss the significance of the relationship, i.e. the situation can be fixed if only…(the asserted correction).

Development approach is likewise routinely conceptualized as a ‘fix it’ to the fix it model.  And that is ridiculous.

The true relationship made notice by the issue of psychedelics in the treatment of mental health precipitates out of the real, ubiquitous, epistemologically foundational ‘either/or’, fix it reduction.

Reality and Truth.

In reality, we fix things. Reality is constituent of things that are right and things that are wrong. This is the inescapable feature of reality and all things that arise in reality to be qualified against what is real. Even if I propose that this is not the case, for example, point to some ultimate reality of quantum dimensions or what have you, I have merely proposed that something is right against what is wrong. Using different terms and definitions do not change this. Every change in terms merely hide, or shift the reality of things away from its truth. This is the nature of reality. Everything that you might be thinking right now to argue against this is real, and arises in reality, to be qualified against what is right and wrong.

This truth of reality is what the infamous Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard sought to address through all his works.

In the futility that arises in the real effort to remain in reality and not be thrown out of it by another person’s (me, say) proclamation of this truth, some might say, so what? I say that this response is an effort to remain in reality due to the ideological pervasiveness of modern subjectivity, which says (one way of putting it) that we all get to create our own realities due to a ubiquitous and omnipresent human feature of meaning, that category we call semantics. In reality, human beings remain real by staying with and finding themselves in reality by thinking that they are making their own reality by creating meaning. Against this pervasive idea, the response so what announces the contradiction that lay at the root of omnipresent relative subjectivity that, for this instance, we usually call moot, or the category we call truism. In short, it means that there is no use in such knowledge because it does not leave an opening for subjective meaning. Hence, again, this is how reality functions. We do not need to recount all the various phenomenological reiterations of the theme around how thought thinks things and all the various profound meanings that philosophers have put forth.

Further, every rebuttal to this truth of reality argues that it must be false, or not right. It is moot, and the implication is that it is wrong, incorrect to include it in the real negotiation except as a curiosity or a meaningless placeholder.

Nonetheless, I say that the more significant feature of this notice is that is functions by also offending that system of knowing that is making the meaning. Because, in this system, to make such a notice must be suggesting that its opposite is true, which, with reference to the system, must be either nothing or nonsensical or it is identity, and identity is, by definition, only equal by virtue of reference to something else. Real subjects must have real meaning and sense.

However, an even more insistent annoyance arises: every rebuttal confirms the deference of knowing to the feature of ideas: It refers itself to a criterion of a closed system. That is. In order for it to be open, it must refer to itself in the opposite negation: closed. Moot here is end, likewise.

Due to the ability to arrive at these conclusions suggests that phenomenological realities must answer to a knowledge that is not subjective. However, this also includes the very knowledge that would be able to come to this conclusion; which is to say, on one hand, the referral to ideology gains not a furthering of knowledge, that is, ideology is the name for the maintenance of the same, in the Hiedeggerian sense of Dasien. On the other hand, the counter partial objective, as a marker which remains within the system of real idea must likewise be adhering to the same criterion: it is but a subject, remaining within the criteria of subjectivity we find, again, all through the traditional literature. All real objects are ideological subjects.  My adjustment to Graham Harman’s OOO is forthcoming.

The opposite cannot be what the ideology understands as opposite with reference to closed semantic system. Hence I say, in the real modern world, all objects become subjects in as much as they were already subjects. All subjects relate in a world of relationship, arising within the real semantic negotiation, routinely missing that which is the relationship itself for the sake of the material subject; this is the definition of phenomenon and the efficient cause at work (again Heidegger) in all discourses of phenomenology. That is, the object that the modern relationship forms is missed by the repetition of real subjectivity (again Kierkegaard), of thought being oriented upon the subject of the object in every case.

New Materialisms draw upon the subjective epistemological default of reality to stay with the logical defaults of reality. Object Oriented Ontology is not a materialism, but proposes to understand or otherwise convey the object through the real negotiation. This is where OOO and the Speculative Realisms that concerns the object fail, and from where all rebuttals against OOO and SR stem, this basic contradiction I have made notice of here.

Mental Health and Psychedelic Treatment.

It is at this point that we can begin to discern the truth of the involvement of psychedelics in mental health treatment.

and I will continue this in a paper, soon to come.
x

Comments

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: