How could a self be anything but self-referential? Aren’t all regurgitated references still filtered and selected through self-perspective/history/bias?
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?
Is nature ever morally ‘wrong?’ Can anything non-human be morally ‘wrong?’ If humans create moral dilemmas and perspectives, then are humans the problem?
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?
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?
Is disorder the most plausible reaction to constant consumption?
Is anything sustainable in the ephemeral?
Is it possible to see within the box without getting locked inside?