What if widespread dwindling mental health has less to do with what’s going on inside individuals and more to do with what’s going on outside? And instead of varying levels of sickness, we’re witnessing varying levels of sensitivity/reaction? Is the intention to heal individuals a lost cause (albeit critical) if we do not acknowledge larger issues concerning the way we live/consume/develop as a whole?
Can humans ever be/act without emotion? Is there a neutral non-emotive state? Can people ever act solely out of ‘moral duty’* sans sensations of emotion? Or do we really just discredit actions rooted in more ‘intense’ emotions like passion, but accept actions rooted from more mild/calm/passive/mindful/whatever states as stable or ‘neutral?’ Isn’t every human action tied to emotion—be it intense or mild? Is it possible to measure/observe/categorize a singular motive of an act, or are all motives inherently tied to a mix of thoughts/feelings/sensations?
Is nature ever morally ‘wrong?’ Can anything non-human be morally ‘wrong?’ If humans create moral dilemmas and perspectives, then are humans the problem?
Could the ‘immaterial’ really be unseen material?
Why are potential overlaps between recreational and therapeutic often discredited? Can’t recreation be therapeutic in some cases too?
Is studying philosophy a sham? Is studying ethics morally permissible? Is the ability to study philosophy or act in and of itself problematic and/or intrinsically valuable? Is it limiting or expanding to read philosophies of those who were able to record theirs? Could it be purely for pleasure?
Can the unseen/abstract/spiritual (unknowable, immeasurable) be separated from the seen/material/physical (knowable, measurable)? If the mind cannot exist without the brain, nor consciousness without electric sensation/connection, then isn’t the unknown/spiritual intertwined with the known/physical? Can psychedelics help Western society overcome an extreme secular reaction to religion and return to the mystical/metaphysical through the physical?
Will off-label psychedelic prescription use be the new recreational or will it mostly be sought for self-directed therapy or therapy with the help of alternative facilitators? Will people—with or without diagnosable mental conditions—prefer off-label use so they can direct/choose the therapeutic style?*
In response to this recent article in Scientific American.
How could clinical psychedelic practice accommodate the fact that some people experience the most insights/healing from the most uncomfortable trips? Is there a ‘right way’ to experience a psychedelic trip? How will new psychedelic therapists be trained to deal with patients who receive the message: You kinda suck. Your past behavior—awful. And it’s time to start over. Should legislation allow all people to seek psychedelic experiences in non-clinical settings for personal or ontological inquiry?
Folk or pharma? How did we reach this question ($, Malleus Maleficarum?)? The answer could be both folk and pharma, but which should supplement the other?