Intoxication and Reason, and philosophy.

All things being equal, can we say that a person who drinks a couple glasses of wine wine in the evenings has the same mannered reasoning as someone who never drinks alcohol?


What about a line of cocaine at lunch, instead of coffee?

Vicodin? OxyContin? Herion? Just in the evenings, to take to edge off?


Magic mushrooms?


Valium? Xanax?  I just take one before meetings, to help me relax.

We are not implying anything about addiction; only about the common category “reason”.

I ponder this because I think it is naïve for people to think that everyone is “sober” in their reasoning.

And I take it a step further to consider people whose job it is to think about reason, namely the philosophers.

Think about how offensive it is if I was to say that if you drink a glass of wine at night or maybe a couple beers in the evening when you get home that your ability to reason the next day is actually shaped differently then someone who doesn’t drink it all, or someone that only smokes weed.

I’m sure the alcoholic purists would say that weed and alcohol are two different situations entirely, and if we brought cocaine into the mix I’m sure the anxiety levels of those so levelheaded casual drinker’s would go out the roof: I only smoke crack on my morning break; it keeps me focused and motivated.

But it is something legitimate to consider.

I think that it is even possible that philosophy as a discipline is miss-cued or otherwise moves along a direction that is false if it does not consider the possibility that reason does not occur through humanity as a common category . That this common category is presumption upon the world and not actual fact that is coming from the world. I even would dare to say that most philosophers are not being totally honest in their philosophy.

And if you look at the post modern philosophy and the somewhat current critical theorists and stuff who basically all derive their methodology from postmodernism despite what they want to call themselves, ( it’s like saying I don’t piss, I urinate, or, that’s not shit, that is the digestion a product of my gut; are we not talking about the same things?) What they’re really saying all the time is that there is this common category called reason and we all get to partake in applying that common category or and faculty upon the world and upon our ability to communicate, and then we get to discuss it on a level playing field. They are saying through this common category we don’t have to talk about what it actually is, we’re going to talk about the actuality of what we call it.


I wonder if this philosophical endeavor is colored over the fact that people of different states of mind are actually speaking on different levels, so to speak, even speaking a different language, One could even say, yet using the same terms. That despite how thoroughly definition is an acted it completely goes by a person of a different state, even as they might redress the definition by using the same terms.

I wonder if philosophy is a discipline that is caught in a haze of its own making for the purpose of exulting this what I would call “transcendent” glory of Reason?

Because if you think about it in these terms we really have a description of philosophy for the past 200 years that is caught up in the very terms it tries to critique, enacting, not something that all human beings do or that reality manifest by, but something that it’s self is a serving upon the rest of reality: terms like “colonialization”, “Oppression”, and “systems of power”.

It could be not that this is how reality is is or this is how humanity functions or anything like that, it could be more that philosophy argues it’s self and asserts itself over the rest of reality and over the rest of humanity as a self justifying critique, it’s self the colonizing and oppressing power that it critiques, like a magic of smoke and mirrors. And the rest the of the world goes “ooooo…aaaaahh” ! They must be thinking and discussing things that are so deep and so smart and intelligent!

If this is the case, then a truly radical critique of structures of power would be able to locate philosophy itself and its discourses that occur along the lines, It would realize through such an event that it is able to pull itself out from the self-critiquing, self depreciating and self justifying correlationalist world. It would convey a feeling unto itself that it no longer had to justify its analysis to that real correlationalism because it is not involved in that kind of assertion of power, colonialization, and oppression, that it sees itself not a part of because of the simple fact that it is open to the possibility that exists beyond the common (shall I say religious?) category called Reason, that closed and colonizing world. This would be so much to say that the reason that I engage with is not the same reason that philosophers tend to want to lump me into. That by virtue of such reason, the reason that is not offended of itself such that critiques of itself do not cause a reaction, not cause what Kierkegaard calls “anxiety” and what Sartre called “revolt from The abyss of freedom”, those mechanisms of excess, by virtue of the absurdity that I am not a part of this assumption of common reason, we might actually be able to see what kind of power is actually occurring, what exactly is the system or state of Being that is enacting this kind of power that it perpetually tries to overcome.





I feel like a rebuttal to this idea would go something like this:

“Just because you say you are not a part of the common Reason doesn’t make it so.”

And I would argue:

“yet, oddly enough, thats exactly what conventional philosophy says makes it so, so long as you get enough people to agree with you, directly or implicitly by joining in with the argument. Philosophy is allowed to submit reasonable proposals that argue that the reason why it is so is because they are saying it, that is, making an argument about it. I am merely saying that there is no “Reason” that could argue that a reason necessarily is the common reason that philosophy is supposed to be talking about or from. And likewise, there is no reason, beyond the argument which say it is so, that Reason contains all human reasonable reason. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And exactly what I am saying about states of reasoning that are taken to be within a common sort: The assumption is that discourse reflects a common medium of reason. Perhaps it does not.”



Comments upon The Stoned Ape.

Hesiod over at Hesiod’s Corner made a comment about my
The Stoned Ape post, to which I am posting the following reply:

I hadnt considered that consumerist view upon this picture; it does make sense to it, and perhaps in a manner you may or may not be aware of.

I am not sure who painted this picture…


, but I got it off of the Terrence Mckenna site. Though my opinions around Mckenna and his ideas roll vast to yea and nay, I nevertheless have a quite involved opinion.

Lets see If I can be somewhat succinct and to the point. Lol. I will assume that you are not familiar with Terrence Mckenna.

Philosophically, this topic is quite involved; that’s why I write books  But, I do tend to side on evolution, rather than “hand of God” type speculations, some of which can include the phenomenalist ideals of reality contained in discourse, where we “appear in the world”.

So, if we can realize what evolution must mean from a pure stand point, then there is a lot going on, again, quite philosophically.

This picture: What I see in it and understand of it is a kind of ‘reverse’ view from the “bad” consumer view.

The ape is sitting on a mushroom; in particular the Fly agaric mushroom. Mckenna’s ideas are quite distasteful for those who like to center themselves in the Big Logos, the Reason God with which many philosophers like to hold communion with, because Mckenna did drugs and in fact advocated that people do “heroic” amounts of psychedelics. Most people do not like to include intoxication and its affects in their ideas of what may be rational.

His basic principle is that apes ate plants such as Camellia sinensis, Coffea, marijuana, and many other intoxicating plants, many of which were poisonous and deadly, but some that were poisonous but not quite deadly. We can find numerous examples of animals eating intoxicating plants for no other purpose that to get high; early hominids most probably ate substances that got them high also, even if accidentally. At some point they came across plants that had psychotropic substances, such as N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, Muscimol, psilocybin and psilocin, and these substances’ interaction with chemistry particular to hominids is what brought about what we know as (human) consciousness. The discussions and arguments are somewhat involved and lengthy, but that’s the kernel of it.

This is the “stoned ape” idea. The idea is that we are still stoned, not special, just ‘stoned’.


This is appearing to make more and more sense with philosophy, as I will be discussing in my coming book (without any reference to the Stoned Ape idea, btw, lol).

In response to the consumerist idea, though; if we include ourselves as not exceptional in the universe, then it is possible that all objects occur equally, effecting and or sensing one another through various relations that are come upon in the due course of the objects being objecs in themselves. If we keep in mind that human beings are not exceptional, as also every other object also is (not exceptional), then we should be able to understand that the very idea of ‘consumption’, the object that we call ‘consumption’, this “thing” that appears in the universe as the object ‘consumption’, is likewise doing the same thing human beings think we are doing, but unto itself. Likewise, all objects that we see ourselves (as centrist beings) consuming, might be consuming us. It is possible, then, that our own consumption is not a problem that has repercussions that will lead us to destruction or some compromised state of being human; it may be that we are involved with the universe in the same manner that it is involved with us, so that we could actually be “being drawn” into the universe through these ‘consumer’ relations with other universal (consuming) objects.

So it may be that we a stoned consumerist ape, but it may not necessarily mean that something is wrong.

Open Query: Intoxicants. 

We all know the problems that intoxicants can bring.

What are the benefits ? Are there any? Does any good come out of getting high? On whatever? 

Please give us your ideas and opinions. 

I think Until we investigate our assumptions about a thing, we will never really know it, or be able to get a handle on it.

Let’s start an honest discussion, one that is not based in embarrassment and bias.