I don't think I quite understand Adrian's question. Are you speaking about the legal issues surrounding drugs, the cultural stigma of drugs, or the "spiritual" experience of drugs (in juxtaposition to religious experiences)?

To be fair, all of these questions are inherently tied together. But I think it's too broad to know exactly what the focus of your question is. If you are talking about the moral underpinnings of these three questions and whether it is 'bad' to take drugs, then I think it's quite different from asking about the 'spiritual' experience.

I think there needs to be some clarification here however. There are spiritual experiences. There are experiences people think are spiritual and are drug-induced. I am unable to comment on either and I am also unable to say which is more 'valid' than the other. Don't think for a moment that I am saying this diminishes the validity of religion. Religion is different from spirituality (although it is impossible to have religion without spirituality). If we are to define religion, what are we really talking about? In this point, I am defining religion in the social theory definition of Durkheim. (I choose Durkheim, because I think he encompasses our contemporary understanding of religion as well as Freud's and Weber's. My own footnote on this is that Freud and Weber are on two different planes of discussing social theory and reconciling the two with one coherent definition is the one that I am choosing) In any case, religion is 1) a system of beliefs and practices that create this idea of sacredness, the quality of things being set aside and forbidden and 2) these beliefs and practices unite all its believers into one corporate body.

Hence, religion implies a community. I don't think that I am wrong to believe that drug-induced spirituality is an entirely individualistic experience and cannot be religion. I don't believe that spirituality has any more legitimacy. My point about this is that plenty of people can be spiritual without actually believing anything at all. A person who tells me that they are a 'spiritual being' isn't really telling me anything. Moreover, spirituality encompasses the supernatural that I am not going to talk about here but which I sincerely believe exists and is nothing to be trifled with. In any case, regardless of what I believe, drug-induced behavior cannot be a religion.

At this point, I realize that you are thinking about the example of soma. First, if one is to count sexual behavior as a unifying activity, then I will point out that soma does not create any idea of sacredness, which I believe is one of Huxley's point of how easy it is to lose this quality and continue with some shell of a religion. While they might hold up soma and Ford and the industrial process and consequently, worshipping their societal reflection, nothing about this society is sacred. At no point is any character talking about whether something is good or bad behavior (other than the 'savage') and rather they are talking about practicality (aka. society wouldn't work without these practices). This is the loss of sacredness.

I hope that clarifies this whole drug - spirituality - religion mess.

posted by Bryan Lee   [6:54 AM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML