Let’s take drugs and listen to Death from Above...

The thing I took from these readings was the implication and understanding that there is nothing creative about drugs. Drugs, as they should be understood, are simply a “looking glass.” I think the point many “artists” try to make is that there are very few “looking glasses” at our disposal and therefore drugs allow them to expand their perspective, if not adjust it in some way. What drugs will not do, however, is give you a perspective. As Pearce stated in his book, only true creative thought can be achieved from relentless study based on logic and reason. As a creative entity, you must be willing to put forth extreme amounts of preparation and devotion to sculpting your mind by realities standards in order to take whatever experience you have on drugs and interpret it for others and yourself. If you look into the backgrounds of most creative people, they have studied books, practiced music, or educated themselves in such a way that taking drugs only allowed them to tap into a new perspective, not a new state of consciousness, completely segmented from themselves. Hughes writes “Many of the artist associated with drug use were artists before they became heavy users, spending years developing their styles and mediums. Such people are inextricably linked to their creative process. Involvement with drugs will alter their creative process, for better or worse, but will not necessarily determine it.” I think people fear talking about drugs so openly because they see it as rationalizing or condoning actions which (are not rationalized or condoned) by our society. I think there is even more fear in the “I guess these aren’t so bad, maybe I should try one” point of view that someone could (but most likely won’t) garner. I think what people need to realize is that talking about drugs is not going to make you want to take them, and if it did, you should realize they are not going to do anything more (for your abilities) than what you can already do on your own. Many “spontaneous” (aka lazy) people don’t feel the need to put in the effort and think a quick fix, i.e. drugs, will allow them to develop an altered state of creativity. This is not the case. More than likely, drugs will become these peoples identity, and they will be trapped in the very thing they hoped would set them free.
As far is good old Santa is concerned, I think much of the first few pages felt like a stretch. I can see “A Partridge in a Pear Tree,” relating to “The Partridge Family” relating to “Family Matters” and suddenly Urkel is the anti-christ. But all that being said I did like how he talked about some of the shamanistic qualities and I do see how Santa could be a direct descendant of shamanism; maybe even St. Nicholas was influenced my shamanistic traditions? I do think many of the “traditions” we hold dear to us definitely have origins in other cultures and we have just molded them to feel unique to us. I also liked the idea that things like Santa and Coca-Cola fill voids, or substitute for things we need to identify or connect with. There can be no money made on just “love” or “compassion” so we must relate these principles to products in order to confuse the public and generate consumer dollars. When we start to relate “stuff” to happiness, we lose our inherent ability to (you fill in the blank).