Try as I might, I can't really link all of this together. In reading "Psychedelic Society", McKenna states that we can't have a society go this long without psychedelics, that they are necessary to having meaning and direction. He tells us that we need to embrace direct experience, which is what a psychedelic would do. Well, I can kind of see his point in that, but do we really need psychedelics to experience the world? I don't know. How do I know that the world experienced while on a psychedelic is the "real thing"? It might just be a different thing, not more or less real, or more or less right. I have to question an article from a guy who (I'm guessing, based on his allusion) believes there will be an apocalyptic event in 2012. I can't remember the details of that cult, but I do remember thinking that they were a whacked out bunch.

In "Law Enforcement Against Entheogens", I can, for the most part, see Sterling's point. If a nature is producing something, and a group of people is using it basically as-is for religious purposes only, it seems as though making it legal ought not to be an issue. Making it illegal only entices people to want to use it. If it were legal, and used only in the intended setting, we (not 'we' as a whole, but 'we' as in our class) probably wouldn't even know about it. At the beginning of the article, though, he lumped LSD in with the peyote and the mushrooms. LSD is not a naturally occuring substance in nature, so I don't think it should be considered in this light. Again, though, I am not one who thinks that we need drugs, natural or synthesized, to have religion, but that's mostly because the religion to which I subscribe doesn't require that of me.

Pearce's chapters were chock-full of stuff. Lots of it went over my head, hit the wall, and slid down into a pile. I'm going through said pile, looking for meaning. He starts off by referencing Eddington, saying, "He felt that man's mind must be made a 'mirror of the universe'." (p.81) He talks a lot about how everything that there is to be known already exists, but we have to go about finding it. Pearce says, "...recognize that man's mind is a mirror of a universe that mirror's man's mind." (p. 82) That seems like it ought to be a really great point, but I struggle with truly grasping it. Is it that we observe the universe around us, but we shape that view of the universe simply by our observation and our thoughts about it? I do like how he talks about science actually being born out of religion, and the thinking that God is rational so we can rationalize everything in His creation. How funny, considering the fact that science and religion have been at odds for centuries, and it will get worse before it gets better.

Pearce talks about how things are only true because people believe them to be true. He talks about how egotistical and arrogant scientists can be regarding their theories, but they have to be that way, or no one would ever believe them. They need belief in their theories in order for their theories to really exist. He also talks about Max Planck, who wrote that when an experiment produced results that were contradictory to what the experimenter theorized, it wasn't a bad thing. Rather, it allowed the experimenter to fine-tune his theory. (p.96) He went on to discuss how we thought that quasars didn't exist, but then we found those. Then we thought that the energy from it was unsurpassed. Then, pulsars were discovered.

Pearce then talked about fire-walking, and how the people who practiced this did it. He spoke of their entry into what seemed like an altered state, and how they came through unharmed. He later referenced an Indian Fakir (p.106) who told a professor that all he had to do was hold his (the Fakir's) hand and he could cross the coals. They cited other examples where all it took was the belief that something COULD be done, for it TO be done. I wonder if I can believe that my blog WILL get written, and somehow that will make it so???? =)