Your reply seems to say a lot that I’m bound to agree with. You emphasis
the effectiveness of power-plants, for example, in de-conditioning us
from the myth that the truth of the world is locked away in other people
books, thoughts, etc. Since the ways in which plant-allies can help us is the
raison d’être of my web-site, you’ll get no argument from me there.
Questions as to the usefulness of plants being key, I’m less concerned
with whether and to what extent I could otherwise appear to be
alienated or seem to be turning my back on established institutions.
You quote back at me my use of the term ‘period’ three times in
your reply, to suggest perhaps how strongly I do seem estranged. But I used
this originally simply to correct any earlier misunderstanding that it was me
that was feeling as if they had been failed. That is, to correct the notion
that I was feeling let down / sorry for myself. In the context of this
correction I go on to say quite specifically as to what extent I think the
institutions have failed ("in
so far as etc..."). So, I’m not saying the failure is absolute,
and, other than with regard to what they have to say about the psychedelic
realm (i.e. nothing). I appreciate any ‘institutions’ that are
helping to hold together an otherwise complex (and sizeable) ‘society’.
– Given that in the process they do not interfere too much with any of my
fundamental liberties (basically, so that they leave me well enough alone).
You go on to say "but becoming ‘more psychedelic’ is
fundamentally nothing to do with power plants in isolation, any more than it
is day-glo bubble writing and tie-dyed clothes [<...]"
To clarify: when I use the word ‘psychedelic’ I mean it as used in the
term ‘psychedelic shamanism’, not as in the term ‘psychedelic sixties’
So, in my sense, becoming more psychedelic is fundamentally
related to the issue of power-plants, whereas day-glo bubble writing and
tie-dyed clothes have nothing to do with my intentions.
Technically, you are entitled to point out that your sentence includes the
phrase ‘in isolation’, but to pivot it on this point is to not say very
much at all, and, contrasting the sublime with the ridiculous in the manner
that you have, is to not say very much in
quite a confusing manner.
You also say that the ‘psychedelicising’ of society will not happen in
spite of the existing institutions. But I would make the contrary point that
becoming ‘more psychedelic’ will happen in spite of the existing
institutions. When I suggest the possibility that "we could become
more psychedelic", I mean me, then you, then others, then society. It
does not mean everyone agrees and changes overnight, it means that certain
individuals can and will decide to explore and discover the plant
realms in spite of existing institutions.
I don’t think that we either have to wait for the institutions to change,
nor do we necessarily have to try change them in the overt ways you suggest.
And I don’t accept the negative connotations you associate with this. You
say, "I don’t get any sense from you that this [- the consequence of
the plant’s revelation] does anything other than mean an utter rejection of
those institutions for you – a turning away". Well, I’d say it means
a lot more than that. Like I say, I don’t ask (or hope) for much from our
existing institutions, other than that they don’t interfere with the rights
of the individual.
Does this mean that I am isolated and withdrawn from the world? I would
suggest not. It’s just that I happen to believe that helping to spread the word
about the plant-allies (about which your parents, teachers and the government
told you nothing) is a very worthwhile task to undertake in this world,
right now. That’s why I’m ‘reaching out’ with my web-site (and, glad
to say, getting over 300 visits/hits a day of late).