I don't think this will surprise too many, but I'll say no. I don't really care one way or the other, people will do what they will. However, it seems to me that heirs of the christian tradition ought to seek transcendant experience through prayer, fasting and contemplation instead of through psychotropic drugs. This was the way of the mystics and saints. Their experiences were as vivid as those induced by acid. Most remarkably they are much more difficult to explain, making them more valid in a religious sense if not on a personal or psychological level.

This harks back to our TASP discussion of the role of drugs in artistic production, specifically in the case of Adrian's beloved Kubla Khan. I think that there is no real usefulness in calling art more or less valid because drugs were involved in its production. When I assign a greater validity to mystic experience sans drugs I do so only because there seems a greater likelihood that one is experiencing a god independent of oneself instead of one created by and thus mirroring one's desires. Despite its uselessness for the study of literature, I think this distinction is legitimate for those mystics who belive in a god outside themselves. This is because while we know some visions to be caused by LSD, it is difficult to assign a cause to the visions of, say, Joan of Arc. She may have been mad, yes, but she may also have spoken with angels. At least we know it was not LSD.

posted by Matthew Schmitz   [1:17 PM]

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

XML