"Well, first my Ďday-glo/bubble writingí after-comment was firmly
- Well, this could run and run. Itís probably best simply to
refer back to whatís been said [(1)<...]
Then readers can find their own degree of irony.
My point (in an area where there is common misunderstanding) was to
simply give a counter interpretation, that is, to crucially define whatís
really implied by the term Ďpsychedelicí [<...]
You said, "The Ďpsychedelicisingí
of society will not happen in spite of existing
institutions" [my italics]. I said "...becoming Ďmore psychedelicí will happen
in spite of the existing institutions ". On the following page I cross-refer back to
these points then address your clarifications. ÖFrom
here I hope itís clearer that I have a very different emphasis and I am
not really saying exactly what you said and just turning the words
around without changing your content Ė or taking your point.
Like I say, I feel that I have given a definition of what I mean by the term
psychedelic, and itís one that is not overly preoccupied with or dependent
on existing institutions, which I think yours is. You are looking to make the
argument that we need to re-build our institutions urgently. Iím more
concerned with our tendency to do anything other than face the psychedelic
You can insist all you like that I am alienated from our existing
institutions. You can insist all you like that Iím avoiding my
responsibility in "making them in the first place". Iíve spent
enough time making my counterpoints [<...]
and itís not a point that particularly interests me.
Why? Ė Because Iím principally interested in experience. As a plant
person experience is the primary data of importance. "All rationalization
and intellectualization and analysis is secondary [...]"
So you say Iím alienated and I say Iím not. But my experience is the
touchstone that informs me that I am not alienated in any sense that I deem to
be significant, and, in the light of that, your
insistence seems more like speculation, - perhaps (even) projection [...]
then that would be my speculation.
Even more speculative is the comment "I donít care how skilled an
individual gets at consuming power plants and traversing hyperspace Ė IF the
moment they get back, they mindlessly eat a steak, drive a 3 litre car to the
local shops, and buy some sweatshop produced cheap clothes [<...]".
This is speculative because itís not based your own experience of what
power-plants do, nor is it based on any empirical observation of the behaviour
of other (trueÖ) plant-people.
In fact, your point seems (ahem) to forget the real miracle of the
true plant allies. The thing that nobody will really understand without engaging
with the experience, the thing that it is difficult to remember without re-engaging
with the experience, is that it is about the expansion of
consciousness. It truly is. And connected with this is everything that that
So returning from a mind-expanding experience in order, the moment one gets
back, to continue with mindless behaviour is a contradiction in terms. Iíll
concede that over time, there may be a tendency to forget, but
thatís only what Iíve been saying all along.