From - Wed Jan 14 11:43:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: from relay1.UU.NET by mrco.carleton.ca (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA29674; Mon, 18 Jan 93 01:33:06 EST Received: from nyx.cs.du.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA25154; Mon, 18 Jan 93 01:31:35 -0500 Received: by nyx.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08224; Sun, 17 Jan 93 23:30:13 MST From: ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu (andy) Message-Id: <9301180630.AA08224@nyx.cs.du.edu> X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of Denver. The University has neither control over nor responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users. Subject: FutureCulture Digest #182 To: future-digest@nyx.cs.du.edu Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 23:30:11 MST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Status: R ______________________________________________________________________ |______________ / | | / | | u t u r e <___________ u l t u r e | _______________________________________________________________________| Issue #182 Sunday, January 17th 1993 Today's Topics: --------------- Anti-Hacker Hysteria... Caffeine Re: Anti-Hacker Hysteria... Re: Biosphere flop Re: Caffeine makes me high Re: your mail Those drugs (Re: your mail) U2 Negativland - The Event Synopsis your mail __________________________________________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 22:48:58 -0800 From: salsbury@netcom.com (The Butterfly) Subject: your mail -When I get in this conversations with my friends, we always come to the -conclusion that there's a lot of people who trip that feel that they're ready -to evolve in some way, whether it's the mind, or the collective unconscious, -or `what have you. A lot of trippers and users of other hallucinogenic and -psychedelic substances tend to feel this way as well Here's a bit of background as to where I derive my mail name from. I usually wait for people to ask about it (and only about 10 have in the past 2.5 years...), but I think it fits with this topic... Pat ______________________________Think For Yourself_______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury 1800 Market Street #23, San Francisco, CA 94102 Voice: 415/703-7177 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thinking for yourself can be painful. It is easier to follow the lead of popular people than to think for oneself and make one's own decision; but the people one chooses to follow may not have accurate information. -Nadja Adolf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Parable of the Five Caterpillars and the Butterfly These three evolutionary developments-Space Migration, Intelligence Increase and Life Extension-offer our species a chance to resuscitate our more enduring visions of challenge and grandeur; a chance to, once again, think noble, hopeful thoughts about our future. It is for this cause that we consider the parable of the five caterpillars, just before their own metamorphosis, who see their first butterfly. The conservative caterpillar sniffs and says, "That's illegal and immoral. They should arrest that irresponsible individual and cage her down here on the ground where she belongs." The technical caterpillar snorts, "They'll never get me up in one of those." The liberal-progressive caterpillar shouts rhetorically, "How dare that frivolous creature float free when there are caterpillars in Bangladesh who don't have color TV's." The Hindu-Buddhist caterpillar chants "Ohm" in a superior manner and says, "Why go to the bother to build those wings when I can just sit in the lotus position and fly by means of astral travel." And the religious caterpillar murmurs piously, "If God had intended Caterpillars to fly he would have given us wings." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 23:29:55 -0800 From: Brian Willoughby Subject: Re: your mail | ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu --- | So this would have detrimental effects on, like, the workforce | for one. If you're tripping out every weekend, your desire to go | back to work on Monday morning, I'd guess, would be lessenned | ten-fold. Also, if everyone tripped out on Saturday nite, | probably not too many people would even get a good nite's rest on | Sunday nite. You'd probly rather sit home and write philosophy | or paint or write poems, and work becomes a sidebar. But the | reailty is that we live in a world where work is a necessity for | sustaining a descent existence, because ultimately our lives are ^^^^^^^ | constrained by the extent of the rest of society's existence. As someone who has not worked for seven and a half months, I find your typo (or was it?) quite mordant. But back to the subject of drugs: I once had a brief glance at the Biochemistry book of a friend in pre-Med. Many powerful drugs like cocaine, heroin, and LSD are very similar in molecular structure to natural body chemicals necessary for the operation of the brain - except that perhaps one molecule is displaced. It seems to me, although I have never experimented, that taking these drugs is like plugging the wrong peripheral into a similarly shaped connector. It fits, but it is not really capable of performing the required function. My hunch has been that LSD, et. al., don't really bring one to a "higher consciousness" or the "true reality", these drugs just send warped messages to the brain, and hopefully only temporarily. But I can only make a wild guess, because that is the extent of my "research". --- Brian Willoughby Software Design Engineer, BSEE NCSU BrianW@SoundS.WA.com Sound Consulting: Software Design and Development NeXTmail welcome ______________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 23:34:16 -0800 From: Brian Willoughby Subject: U2 Negativland - The Event Synopsis Re: The "U2" single from the band called Negativland I wish I had a scanner so I could send the entire contents of Negativland's magazine/press release collection. Apparently the publishers have an anti-copyright on its contents to encourage copying and distribution. It is titled: NEGATIVLAND THE LETTER U AND THE NUMERAL 2 You probably won't be able to find it - at least I had a great deal of trouble. There were a limited number printed. You might be able to order a copy from: Negativmailorderland 109 Minna #391 San Francisco, CA 94105 Write them for more information. Since it is unlikely that you will find a copy, I will summarize its contents below (the first three items are from a different source, but are included to flesh out the early history of the single). This summary is far from the complete story, which could only be told by the original documents in their entirety, but it is the shortest synopsis I could manage and still cover the full scope of the events. Feel free to distribute this (without editing). HISTORY: After a Negativland concert in Portland, Oregon, a fan hands the band a tape of outtakes from Casey Kasem's American Top 40. Mark Hosler finds an ad in the back of a music magazine offering presequenced MIDI arrangements of top-40 songs including a disk with U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". "I have the /Joshua Tree/ album," Hosler says. "I like the record ... there's a lot of /feel/ to the way they play their rock and roll, and I figured it would translate into a computer really badly ... probably badly in a way that's good, you know -- that we would like, and that would be funny. Then I was /also/ realizing that if we got [bandmember] David [Wills], otherwise known as The Weatherman, to do the vocals ... if I gave him a version of the lyrics and I wrote it kind of illegibly, I bet he would really mess them up, and I bet he would butcher them in a really nice way." Aug. 20, 1991: SST Records releases Negativland's single titled "U2" CONTENTS of Single: Cover: (From largest to smallest) The text "U2". Photo of a U-2 spy plane. The group's name: "NEGATIVLAND" Two tracks. Audio mix: Casey Kasem outtakes from The American Top 40 Radio Show: - TRACK ONE - "This is American Top 40" "Here's the first top 40 hit ..." "... for the Irish band from Dublin who call themselves 'U2'." "That's the letter /U/ - and the numeral /two/!" "That's the /letter/ U - and the /numeral/ two!" "What the hell's going on here?" "Good Golly Miss Molly" "Let the god-damn jingle ID this show. I ID the show whenever there isn't a jingle, don't I? Don't I do it between every god-damn record that we play?" "That's the letter U - and the numeral two. The four man band features Adam Clayton on bass, Larry Mullen on drums, Dave Evans, nicknamed The Edge on ... This is bullshit. Nobody cares. These guys are from England and who /gives/ a shit?" "Just a lot of wasted names that don't mean diddley shit!" - TRACK TWO - "Oh Fuck!" "OK. I want a god-damn concerted effort to come out of a record that isn't a /fucking/ up-tempo record every time I do a god-damn /death/ dedication!" "I want somebody to use his fucking brains to not to come out of a god-damn record that is ... uh .. that's, that's up-tempo and I've gotta talk about a fucking dog dying!" "This is fuckin' ponderous, man." "This is American Top 40, right here on the radio station you grew up with, Music Radio 1 3 8 Oh Fuck!" David Wills a.k.a. The Weatherman: narration and an ad-libbed spoken rendition of U2's lyrics Bono: excerpt from recorded (MTV?) interview: "uh ... uh, the /last/ thing we wanted to do was sound like anybody else." "So with U2 ... got a challenge, musically speaking." "You know, you've gotta find new sounds on guitar, you gotta find a new way of approaching the four/four beat. y' y' you know, rock-n-roll still needs innovation, you know, and there's a lot, there's, there's a lot out there." MIDI sequence of "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", legally purchased and instrumented with various noises for the percussion and kazoo for the melody. Various live Ham Radio broadcasts Various sampled sounds and voices and quotes from undetermined sources ... nearly exactly two weeks later ... Sept. 3, 1991: Island Records and Warner/Chappell Music publishers sue SST Records and Negativland. Sept. 5, 1991: A 180 page legal document, Case #: CV 91-4735AAH (GHKX), is filed at the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. District Court which cost Island approximately $10,000 to produce. Sept. 23, 1991: Article in _San_Francisco_Chronicle_, page E4, "U2's Label Stops Sales of Parody" Sept. 24, 1991: Article in _Village_Voice_, Rockbeat, "Reproduction or What?" Oct. 8, 1991: SST Records agrees, on Negativland's and their own behalf, to enter into a settlement agreement to pay damages to Island and Warner/Chappell. SST Records then proceeds to try to trick Negativland into signing a separate agreement which will lay the entire blame and costs upon Negativland, including any and all costs incurred by SST Records, without any requirement for SST Records to show accounting of these costs and without any restriction that SST Records will not further sue Negativland. Oct. 15, 1991: Originally scheduled preliminary injunction hearing Oct. 31, 1991: Negativland responds to SST Records, refusing their demands but offering to pay half the costs while sharing responsibility (SST Records makes $6 for every $1 that Negativland makes on sales of their records). Negativland further asks that SST Records show accounting records as proof of their costs, and that Negativland will not be held responsible if SST Records does not fulfill their obligations under the release agreement with Island and Warner/Chappell. Nov. 10, 1991: Negativland's First Press Release: "U2 Negativland: The Case From Our Side" Nov. 19, 1991: Chris Blackwell, President of Island Records, sends a fax to Negativland admitting that the members of U2 have given him a huge amount of hastle (sic) not to press for payment. But Chris still wants to be reimbursed for US$55,000 in legal fees. Nov. 20, 1991: Negativland responds to Chris Blackwell. They point out that Island could have politely asked for a cover change instead of instigating an expensive legal battle, and also that SST Records is currently dumping all costs upon Negativland. They further suggest that Island could: 1) release the single with their own cover, take their legal fees from the profits, and then share the remaining profits with Negativland under standard royalties. 2) release the less offensive track (#1) as a B-side of a U2 single, as suggested by Paul McGuiness, U2's manager, to avoid any stigma of censorship attached to U2. 3) call off the settlement and allow SST to continue selling the record, paying royalties to Island instead of Negativland, on the condition that Island is free to design a sticker appearing on the cover: "This Is Not A U2 Record" or whatever. - Negativland further invites Island to suggest their own variation for a solution. Nov. 21, 1991: Court delivers final judgement ordering SST Records and Negativland to stop production, recall all copies from stores and radio stations, and deliver absolutely everything to Island for destruction - monitoring of the entire process to be under the jurisdiction of the court. Dec. 5, 1991: Negativland sends a fax to Dermott Hayes, Irish Music Writer and Friend of U2, upon his request, including copies of Chris Blackwell's fax. They ask for help from Mr. Hayes with both Island and the members of U2. Dec. 11, 1991: Negativland sends a severance letter to SST Records. Dec. 19, 1991: Negativland sends a fax to Island President: Chris Blackwell, Island Vice President of Business Affairs: Eric Levine, U2 Manager: Paul McGuiness, and U2 saying that they had no involvement in SST Records' `Kill Bono' t-shirt and promotional campaign. They also ask for mercy considering that SST Records is holding Negativland responsible for all legal costs, and they also bug Chris Blackwell to respond to their earlier fax. Dec. 20, 1991: SST Records makes their first press release, mixing fact with fanciful fiction. They detail the case and costs, but unfairly state that Negativland has paid no legal or other expenses (SST is keeping 100% of Negativland's royalties from all of their releases, which is a significant monetary loss), and they also wrongly accuse Negativland of remaining silent (despite their many faxes and press releases). Jan. 21, 1992: Negativland's Second Press Release, through Universal Media Netweb, details the story so far and even includes copies of the various faxes and press releases to date. It is pointed out that SST Records owns most of Negativland's back catalog, including a final EP, /Guns/, to be released in Feb. '92, revealing to the thoughtful reader that SST has a significant source of income at the expense of Negativland's right to their contractual royalties. Jan. 28, 1992: Paul McGuinness, U2's Manager, sends Negativland a confused, hand-written, and rather lame fax which seems to attempt to turn the focus away from U2 and Island. Feb. 1, 1992: Article in _Rolling_Stone_, Random Notes, showing the single's cover and quoting Paul McGuiness and Mark Hosler. Feb. 3, 1992: SST Records makes their second press release, accusing Negativland of spreading misinformation. They state that their legal costs would not be recouped until 2257 AD based upon Negativland's current sales. The press release includes language from Greg Ginn, the owner of SST, saying "I contend that Mark Hosler is a lying motherfucker", and suggests a lie detector test between the two. (Although Greg states that Negativland previously agreed to take full responsibility for their releases, he describes situations which should have alerted SST to the potential problem such that they could have easily avoided the situation) Greg goes on to tell a sob story about how poor SST Records is compared to the members of Negativland with their "cushy" corporate jobs which allow them to treat music as a hobby. Greg repeatedly uses the terms "cushy" and "motherfucker" throughout the four page press release. His edited history conveniently omits the first Negativland press release to support his earlier claim that they had remained silent. Feb. 12, 1992: Negativland responds to Paul McGuinness regarding his strange fax, but they keep their usual businesslike, to-the-point style. Negativland calmly reminds him of the situation and makes a few reasonable requests and observations. They also point out that, despite U2's highly visible good public relations with Greenpeace and Amnesty International endorsements, how Island Records is owned by Polygram, and Polygram is owned by Philips, and that Philips, besides manufacturing audio equipment, is ranked 66th out of 100 defense contractors, is in the top 50 contractors in the U.S. Department of Defense, and has a significant presence in South Africa (about 4000 employees). Feb. 17, 1992: Negativland's Third Press Release is again through Universal Media Netweb. and they have now taken on a tongue-in-cheek approach. Apparently, their press releases have entered into the realm of creative art. Feb. 26, 1992: SST Records Hires Expensive Corporate Entertainment Lawyer to Sue Negativland. Although the layer's letter contains convincing legalese, it appears to mostly be a threat to settle out of court within ten days - or else. In addition to insinuations with respect to a previous legal agreement which is not actually quoted, there is also mention that SST Records expects Negativland to deliver two new releases which "belong" to SST Records. Mar. 4, 1992: Negativland's Fourth Press Release continues the style of humorous media art creations characteristic of their other Universal Media Netweb press releases. Mar. 5, 1992: Negativland sends a well-constructed response to SST Records' Expensive Corporate Entertainment Lawyer. They basically refuse to be steamrollered by threats, but are willing to act responsibly and legally and maintain their original offer of a 50/50 split. They also (again) review the course of events so far. Mar. 10, 1992: Negativland sends an appeal directly to U2, during their /Zoo TV/ tour, that the members ask Island to return the single so that Negativland can change the cover and re-release it to pay off the mounting legal fees. Mar. 24, 1992: Eric Levine of Island sends a fax to Paul McGuiness, U2's Manager, stating that the single cannot be returned to Negativland under threat from the lawyers of Casey Kasem that Island will be sued as a result of any kind of release or transfer of rights of said recording. Apr. 1992: Casey Kasem (interviewed outside Las Vegas, Nevada, by KUNV and KAOS radio stations regarding Negativland's use of the recording of his voice): "I'm against censorship of any kind. Even Casey Kasem. If they want to censor me, fine. But that's not fine, You can't censor me because I believe in the First Amendment. Nobody should be censored" Apr. 14, 1992: Negativland writes a 'Letter to the Editor' of BAM Magazine responding to their publication of the SST Records' press release, which had curiously been edited to remove obscenities and was in other ways not a fair representation of the facts. Apr. 21, 1992: Negativland procures a credit report on SST Records which proves that the company is worth a cool $1.205 million, expects annual sales of $5 million, and has enjoyed a net annual income of $821,956. Apr. 29, 1992: Casey Kasem's Attorneys, Armbruster, Adler, Briskin & Glushon, respond to Negativland's Apr. 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Kasem requesting permission to release the U2 Negativland single. The letter states that Mr. Kasem will _not_ grant such permission and will pursue all legal remedies in the event of release of the single or any other use of the outtakes of Mr. Kasem from the American Top 40 Radio Show. The lawyers copied Chris Blackwell, Eric Levine, Paul McGuinness and Casey Kasem to make sure that there can be no mistake about the matter. June, 1992: U2's publicist in L.A. contacts /Mondo 2000/ magazine on behalf of the group's guitarist. The Edge, with the idea of doing a rare interview concerning the group's /Zoo TV/ tour and its use of technology. /Mondo/ editor R. U. Serius then, without The Edge's knowledge, contacts his friends Don Joyce and Mark Hosler of Negativland with an invitation to participate in the interview. June 20, 1992: Negativland's Fifth and Final Press Release through Universal Media Netweb. The humor of mass media as art is at its highest and most creative. June 25, 1992: Negativland joins R. U. Serius to await the interview call from The Edge in Dublin. INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS: The Edge: "Well, I just like the magazine. I've seen a few issues. And its just so boring, the usual magazine kind of angles, so well-trodden. I just thought you might have an interesting angle on what we're doing which would be a little bit more imaginative." The interview begins with the un-introduced Mark and Don discussing issues with The Edge such as U2's initial discomfort with the idea of being a big band, their concept of Zoo TV as a live remix of the satellite video airwaves during concert, their attempts to remain an "irreverent" influence, and the issues of re-broadcasting copyrighted TV broadcasts in a live venue where people paid for a ticket. The Edge maintains that fragmentary use is acceptable, and even cites a case where dance records have sampled a U2 drum loop. It is at this point that R. U. Serius interjects to announce that Mark and Don, aside from being occasional contributors to Mondo 2000, are members of a band called Negativland. A big "Ahhhhhh!" from The Edge. As the discussion continues, The Edge admits limited knowledge of the events, but seems to think that Island's actions were understandable, if not in agreement with U2's wishes after the fact. As Mark and Don tell the full story, The Edge exudes surprised exclamations which seem to indicate that he was not aware of the full story. They discuss how unfair Island's economic sledgehammer was against such a small band, they discuss the two-faced Casey Kasem, they discuss the lack of willingness of the other parties to accept Negativland's reasonable compromises, they discuss the public domain and new ideas for the extent of copyrights, they discuss the future of folk art. Negativland even admits that the cover art was their own design. The Edge seems to think his band powerless to control Island, but Negativland argue that they should have a lot of pull as the largest moneymaker with Island (14 million copies of "The Joshua Tree", the first CD to sell in such numbers). Negativland also states that U2's management insulates them from the real world and that U2 cannot claim to be uninterested in legal concerns since they are hooked up with legality in a big way. Just as they are discussing how Negativland was dealing with bureaucratic company business, the phone disconnects. The Edge earns good points by immediately phoning again. The discussion continues with what happened versus what the group could have done regarding this and future copyright issues. Negativland asks The Edge if he has heard of the book called /Hit Men/ by Frederick Dannen, which he admits he owns but has not read, and then urges him to read it. They go on to discuss how U2 had been sued because Bono made some live quotes of only one or two phrases of copyrighted material. When the 'Kill Bono' t-shirt from SST Records comes up, The Edge says he wants one! The interview ends with Negativland touching upon the negative press which U2 has received, how Island must have anticipated this, and then Mark finally asks The Edge for a $15 to $20 thousand dollar loan, repayable with 10% interest after 9 months, in order to fund their own record company - and also to allow U2 some great publicity. July 31, 1992: Negativland writes to Casey Kasem alerting him to the impending publication of this U2 interview and asks him to reconsider permitting Island to release the single to Negativland since it would probably result in a better public image for Mr. Kasem. Negativland includes a copy of the interview, their Final Press Release, the transcript of Kasem's interview with radio stations KUNV and KAOS, and the letter from Kasem's lawyers Armbruster, et. al. Aug. 20, 1992: The magazine, NEGATIVLAND THE LETTER U AND THE NUMERAL 2, goes to press and so far: The Edge never lent Negativland the money, Casey Kasem has not responded, and SST is still threatening to sue Negativland. Fall, 1992: Mondo 2000 publishes a large excerpt from the U2 interview, circulation 100,000. --- Brian Willoughby Software Design Engineer, BSEE NCSU BrianW@SoundS.WA.com Sound Consulting: Software Design & Development NeXTmail welcome ______________________________ From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh) Subject: Re: your mail Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 00:31:05 -0600 In message <9301161822.AA28037@nyx.cs.du.edu>, salvador dali on x writes: > hospital's adolescent units (at least here in Colorado) are filled > with teenagers who trip a lot...A *lot*, as in watch out Tim My impression is that people who trip a *lot*, as in watch out Tim Leary (like that one girl at my high school who said that she took 10 hits/day) probably have built up such a tolerance that it ends up being just a stimulant. That's what it seems like, when this guy I knew last year told me how he was "always tripping" the previous summer-- he was probably taking so much that it just acted as a stimulant. (This is only an impression, note.) Scotto said: |Dig: LSD does not induce "temporary psychosis". This is leftover propaganda |from the sixties, when psychedelics were actually called "psychotomimetics," |meaning literally, "inducing psychosis" or some such. That term was coined |*specifically* to scare people away from the stuff. Until actual research get |*completed*, we don't know much, but we *do* know it isn't psychosis. Fun |fact: didja know it's now legal in Switzerland to use LSD in limited |psychiatric therapy? Yeehah! Actually, from reading _Storming Heaven_, they called it a psychotomimetic, meaning "simulates psychosis" because the researchers (Albert Hofmann, others) actually thought it simulated psychosis. They thought that the fact that it could simulate psychosis made it a very valuable tool to study psychosis, so that they could treat it better. By taking it themselves they could understand the psychotic state, and by giving it to others they could examine the psychotic state in a person without psychological training. It wasn't used as a scare term among the researchers. The term psychomimetic went out of use in research circles before it became illegal in the US, because they realized that it wasn't simulating psychosis. Maybe after the anti-LSD scare campaign began, the propogandists saw that the researchers used to call it a psychotomimetic and decided to transmogrife the term to mean "induces psychosis" and say, "Look these researchers used to say it INDUCES PSYCHOSIS." I wasn't around during these anti-LSD scare campaigns though, I wasn't yet born. > > ObFutCult: will America ever re-legalize any hallucinogenic drugs > beyond just religious or psychiatric or medicinal use? What's gonna > happen if ketamine gets popular in high schools in Kansas????? Beyond religious use? Does that mean one would have to be a member of an organized religion in order to use it if it were legalized for "religious use"? That's silliness. (It's the law, what does one expect.) Making it legal for psychiatric/medicinal use would be a valid first step, but a 2nd step of religious use is not really a good idea, in my view. (BTW: I don't like the term hallucinogenic. Psychedelic: Mind-manifesting is more appropriate. MDMA is a psychedelic, but no hallucinations result. [unless you'd call empathy a hallucination.]) -- | Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM | | "Specialization is for Insects" | | Question Authory/Think Alternatives | | -Robert A. Heinlein | "A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded" -Abraham Lincoln ______________________________ From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh) Subject: Re: Biosphere flop Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 00:47:45 -0600 In message <9301170005.AA26588@igc.apc.org>, Michael Ney writes: > > BTW - are they on the net here? > I know that Linda Leigh (is that her name?) has an account on the WELL. I would assume that the other Bio2ians have accounts too. (Kevin Kelly gave me her address, but I misplaced it-- it's *somewhere* in my archives-- I can search for it if the demand is high.) Peace, -- | Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM | | "Specialization is for Insects" | | Question Authory/Think Alternatives | | -Robert A. Heinlein | "A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded" -Abraham Lincoln ______________________________ From: fly@geog.buffalo.edu (Paul Fly) Subject: Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 10:03:48 EST > At any rate, urban legends aside, I think the facts are (don't quyote > me) that less than 1 in 100 people who use LSD suffer any negative > side effects, so obviously for a majority of people there will be no > harm done. But that doesn't excuse the millions of people, especiay > teenagers, who go out and trip without having researched into it - > it's history, it's culture, it's chemistry. Those are the type of > people prone to wigging that would blame the drug when they tried to > jump out a window or something. It's not the fault of the drug, it's > the fault of your mind, and it's your own conscious fault for not > knowing what you're getting into. > > This is why I don't support the full legalization of LSD. I think its safe to say that less than 1 out of 10 people who take large dosed of TV on a regular basis suffer negative side effects. But that doesn't excuse the millions of people from not going out and researching its history, its culture, its technical specifications. Those are the type of people prone to becoming numbed vegetables. These are the people who've become so clouded they don't even know what to blame their dead-end life on. This is why I support the prohibition of TV. > but if [LSD] is to > become legal to the degree that say alcohol is, then, odds are you're > going to only have more societal problems. [some statistics deleted] I agree, that's why I support the prohibition of driving. > So this would have detrimental effects on, like, the workforce for > one. If you're tripping out every weekend, your desire to go back to > work on Monday morning, I'd guess, would be lessenned ten-fold. > You'd probly rather > sit home and write philosophy or paint or write poems, and work > becomes a sidebar. But the reailty is that we live in a world where > work is a necessity for sustaining a descent existence, because > ultimately our lives are constrained by the extent of the rest of > society's existence. In fact, the works of Plato, Hume, and all those thoughtful people from the past should be burned. People will work harder if they don't have "deep philosophical" things to think about. There should be books of praise to the Assembly Line and the Typing Pool. Gods of Labor. This is why I support the Movement to Make Art Illegal (MMAI). > So, umm, if anyone replies to this, I'd especially be interested in > people's opinions regarding evolution and psychedelics. sarcasm mode off. Well, I think that the effects of making LSD legal on society are too complex to predict, period. The only way to find out is to do it. To say "well, it seems like it will be bad, so let's not do it" is akin, in my mind, to living a life of 9 to 5 work days without ever taking a chance and trying something new because its scary. Anyhow, I make no claims to having the faintest clue as to what will happen in the future, and what effect a change will cause, and I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have such knowledge. All I can say is what I know myself. Every time I've tripped, I've come out with something very important to me, realizations about myself and the situation I'm in, Answers (disclaimer: Answers only within the independent memetic stew of my consciousness, nothing objective). And every time at some point I remember that what I've just done is illegal and it shocks me. Every time. From my subjective vantage point on this Life and the World thing, its a serious crime that this is illegal. Paul ______________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 11:03:19 -0500 From: ah185@yfn.ysu.edu (Christopher L. Tumber) Subject: Caffeine Scotto Writes: >First of all, let me point out that I've recently eliminated c >diet, and am now approaching 175 to 200% real fruit juices. Cool! Congrats! I took have recently given up caffeine....Actually, I've really given up colas (I almost never drink coffee). I used to drink about 2 liters a day (mostly diet so I wouldn't pork out) but, a couple weeks ago, I went without, and experienced withdrawal! Headaches, crankiness, feeling dazed and disoriented, the whole bit. Of course, I didn't really realize it was the cola until I had more, and felt good again. So, I had to make a decision. The fact is, a REALLY like cola, maybe being hooked wasn't such a big deal.. ^I Well, anyhow, after considerable soul searching, I decided it was time for me 'n colas to go our separate ways. After the initial break, it really hasn't been too tough, though I do drink a LOT of OJ! ______________________________ From: ahawks (the bladerunner) Subject: Re: your mail Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 9:28:50 MST New fresh-scented *Paul Fly* (150% real fruit juices!) says: | |I think its safe to say that less than 1 out of 10 people who take large |dosed of TV on a regular basis suffer negative side effects. But that |doesn't excuse the millions of people from not going out and researching |its history, its culture, its technical specifications. Those are the type |of people prone to becoming numbed vegetables. These are the people who've |become so clouded they don't even know what to blame their dead-end life |on. | |This is why I support the prohibition of TV. | |> but if [LSD] is to |> become legal to the degree that say alcohol is, then, odds are you're |> going to only have more societal problems. |[some statistics deleted] | |I agree, that's why I support the prohibition of driving. | |In fact, the works of Plato, Hume, and all those thoughtful people from the |past should be burned. People will work harder if they don't have "deep |philosophical" things to think about. There should be books of praise to |the Assembly Line and the Typing Pool. Gods of Labor. This is why I |support the Movement to Make Art Illegal (MMAI). | |> So, umm, if anyone replies to this, I'd especially be interested in |> people's opinions regarding evolution and psychedelics. | |sarcasm mode off. Well, I think that the effects of making LSD legal on |society are too complex to predict, period. The only way to find out is to |do it. To say "well, it seems like it will be bad, so let's not do it" is |akin, in my mind, to living a life of 9 to 5 work days without ever taking |a chance and trying something new because its scary. I think we should give a uzi to every living individual when they turn 18 so they can protect themselves from the violent world we live in. The effects of everyone having the same gun are too complex to predict, so let's just go ahead and do it. same logic, basically. I liked your post up until this point, where, honestly I thought it became quite wierd. Life is a series of intricate balances, and those careful balances have evolved from "just do it" attitudes...The more advanced we become, the more careful and delicate the balances of society. This is how we learn from our mistakes. If we didn't learn from our misstakes, the world would be *total* anarchy, history would *constantly* repeat itself. But since we learn somewhat from our mistakes, we don't live in complete anarchy and history doesn't constantly repeat itself ("it just rhymes" - Chris Beaumont said that, I believe).... The effects are not too complex too predict...Nothing is too complex to predict...I think your statement is the perfect implication for holding off until more research can be done, until we have a relatively large understanding of the brain and the mind in relation to hallucinations...This comes from scientific work, not just from people like Lilly and Leary, and it also depends on technology, which takes time.... Rushing into something like this without a suficient scientific understanding, without a sociological understanding, is IMHO just dumb and goes against what society has learned from itself. That is why legalization only for psychiatric use is a good idea. ______________________________ From: there,! |Anyhow, I make no claims to having the faintest clue as to what will happen |in the future, and what effect a change will cause, and I'm skeptical of |anyone who claims to have such knowledge. All I can say is what I know |myself. That's a good start, but odds are even though you've tripped a lot that you don't know all of yourself, otherwise, if everyone knew all of themselves, we would've reached the peak of human experience, and given that the future potentially offers growth that is proof that we haven't reached the high point of existence. I personally believe we're far from it. Anyway, predicting future trends is practically a science. Predicting future trends is how one succeeds in the world, since it increases your understanding of the present as well as the future. I heartily despise the "sit back and see wht happens" attitude since it is very passive. I can't stand a passive existence anymore. It's basically leeching off the world, IMHO. If you're not out there, changing your reality, working for success in your future reality, and if you're not making any contribution to society, then why live? It seems to me that a passivity towards the future is only anxiety rationalized. Anxiety of the unknown seems practically inherent in people. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't have prejudice, racism, wars, etc. |Every time I've tripped, I've come out with something very |important to me, realizations about myself and the situation I'm in, |Answers (disclaimer: Answers only within the independent memetic stew of my |consciousness, nothing objective). And every time at some point I remember |that what I've just done is illegal and it shocks me. Every time. From my |subjective vantage point on this Life and the World thing, its a serious |crime that this is illegal. Again I'd like to say that some people who feel they're happy and in a good state of mind have had bad experiences with LSD that have the potential of forever altering their realiy in a way which they are apparently inable or unprepared to cope with. Because it's the answer for you doesn't mean it's the answer for everybody. BTW, is it just more or does it seem that just about everyone who trips frequently loses some sense of objectivity in their relation with their world? It's subtle in this post, it's evident on the net, and it's clearly visible in Timothy Leary. Personally and with my friends I've found it to not only increase the area of subjective reality but objective as well, but when you come to the net and talk about it, most people seem to lose a sense of the dimensions of society and sometimes even the fact that everyone is ultiamtely intertwined, and everyone affects everyone, and that people function on an infinite specrtum of sensabilities and relations. -- ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu FutureCulture: In/f0rmation ahawks@mindvox.phantom.com future-request@nyx.cs.du.edu ______________________________ From: "Kent A. Watsen" Subject: Re: your mail Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 13:07:07 EST Brian Willoughby sez: > It seems to me, although I have never experimented, that taking these > drugs is like plugging the wrong peripheral into a similarly shaped > connector. It fits, but it is not really capable of performing the > required function. My hunch has been that LSD, et. al., don't really > bring one to a "higher consciousness" or the "true reality", these > drugs just send warped messages to the brain, and hopefully only > temporarily. But I can only make a wild guess, because that is the > extent of my "research". Your half right here. Its true that these chemicals transcend the blood/brain barrier by emulating the structure of naturally ocurring chemicals. However, there is nothing spiritual in their effect on the body. Acid, for instance, opens up the synaptic gap so that 'sight' sensations might be receive as 'feelings'. The synaptic gap contains a firing mechanism and a receptor for each of the five senses: touch, sight, smell. sound, taste. When the gap is opened wide, five squared posible scenarios can occur...only five of which are 'normal.' Referring to the discussion on psychosis, a friend of mine once took 14 hits of acid and tripped for the next yeaf and a half. He was institutionalized as 'psychotic.' Go figure. _____________________________________________________________________________ Kent Watsen "Iph this were a virus, y0u w0uld be dead right n0w, Kent@Virginia.edu ph0rtunately it'z n0t" -- Sn0w Crash ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ______________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 17:21:02 -0500 From: ah185@yfn.ysu.edu (Christopher L. Tumber) Subject: Re: Caffeine makes me high Bobby Angel writes: > I went about 3.5 years without a "cola" or any other soda .... Yep, I've eliminated ALL pop. It would just be too difficult to have some but not all, they're just too similar and I don't want to maybe comprimise at some point (Awww, but it's caffeine free-diet..) I'm also working on (refined) sugars (esp. chocolate... and not just cuz of the caffeine either) with slightly less (but still promissing) success... All for one! And every man for himself! -Black Adder ______________________________ Date: 17 Jan 1993 16:36:49 -0600 (CST) From: Scotto The fun continues... >I think we should give a uzi to every living individual when they turn >18 so they can protect themselves from the violent world we live in. >The effects of everyone having the same gun are too complex to >predict, so let's just go ahead and do it. >same logic, basically. It may be the same logical *form*, but it is not at all the same logic. LSD and UZIs are two *distinct* entities, and it is a fallacy to compare them in this fashion. >Rushing into something like this without a suficient scientific >understanding, without a sociological understanding, is IMHO just dumb >and goes against what society has learned from itself. Society hasn't learned *jack* from itself. Society legalizes alcohol and tobacco, the two most dangerous, addictive, and destructive drugs available (short of, perhaps, ice), while restricting *marijuana* and LSD. Society is a morass of jumbled opinions, *not* an independent entity capable of making reasonable distinctions. I see a tendency in this discussion towards emphasizing those users who "freak out" while basically ignoring the untold numbers who have no problems with this substance or others like it. >That's a good start, but odds are even though you've tripped a lot >that you don't know all of yourself, otherwise, if everyone knew all >of themselves, we would've reached the peak of human experience, and >given that the future potentially offers growth that is proof that we >haven't reached the high point of existence. I personally believe >we're far from it. This doesn't relate to Paul's argument. Paul *knows* the risks, so it's acceptable for him to continue tripping, even though eventually, maybe, someday, who knows, he might freak out. And there is *no* proof that we haven't reached the high point of existence -- *potential* does not translate into *proof*. I like to be optimistic about the future as well, but this is a delicate topic, and caution is required. (heh) >If you're not out there, changing your >reality, working for success in your future reality, and if you're not >making any contribution to society, then why live? It seems to me >that a passivity towards the future is only anxiety rationalized. And someone like Baba Ram Dass, or the gang over on BUDDHA-L, might disagree with you. And they might be right, within their own internal paradigms. >Again I'd like to say that some people who feel they're happy and in a >good state of mind have had bad experiences with LSD that have the >potential of forever altering their realiy in a way which they are >apparently inable or unprepared to cope with. Because it's the answer >for you doesn't mean it's the answer for everybody. But if it IS the answer for me, I WANT IT. End of story. >BTW, is it just more or does it seem that just about everyone who >trips frequently loses some sense of objectivity in their relation >with their world? It's subtle in this post, it's evident on the net, >and it's clearly visible in Timothy Leary. The philosophy of subjectivism clearly predates LSD use in this country, Andy. :) Seriously, at the heart of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is the same sort of subjective nihilism you've been discussing in this thread. It's not at all subtle in this post; I know Paul rather well (comparatively speaking), and he has certainly displayed subjective tendencies. As far as "evident on the net," so what? The opposite is also evident; I'm certainly no more a hard core subjectivist than I am an objectivist -- either way, I only have x amount of time to get off while I'm here. And as for Timothy Leary, let's not forget the fact that he is also approaching *senility*, as he himself has admitted on more than one occasion. He's over seventy years old, and *some* humans at that age are past their intellectual prime. >Personally and with my >friends I've found it to not only increase the area of subjective >reality but objective as well, but when you come to the net and talk >about it, most people seem to lose a sense of the dimensions of >society and sometimes even the fact that everyone is ultiamtely >intertwined, and everyone affects everyone, and that people function >on an infinite specrtum of sensabilities and relations. And you're telling me that science can *predict* what this infinity will be? I am *not* responsible for the infinity; if I were, the infinity would go to fucking rot. I am responsible for those things which I *choose* to be responsible for, and primarily among those is myself. True altruism is impossible. It so happens that one of the things that makes *me* happy is seeing *others* happy; the synergy, I've found, is wonderful and expressive. I go months at a time without touching any sort of drug whatsoever, and there are periods within those months where I am a subjectivist, and periods where I am an objectivist. I refuse to be classified in such general terms. To say "most people seem to lose..." makes me want to ask, "Which people in particular? Where can I go to read them? Or is this just what Andy has seen in his corner of the net?" You used to be on Leri, Andy -- how many of those folks do you suppose would admit to being a true subjectivist? I'm still there, and I can count two, perhaps three, and Paul is one of them (so if he *isn't* actually, there ya go...) Good topic here. The Culture of the Future will *certainly* involve psychedelics and other mind-altering practices, and it's good to explore the ramifications of that well in advance.... ______________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 17:36:09 -0500 From: ah185@yfn.ysu.edu (Christopher L. Tumber) Subject: Anti-Hacker Hysteria... My sociologist girfriend has to do a paper for her propaganda class. She's considering writing about anti-hacker media hysteria/propaganda if I can supply her with enough material. I have some of the obvious sources (Forbes, Stuff on the 2600 Washington Flack, EFF stuff) but I don't want to miss anything. Specifically, anything from the past year or so is best. With print media and TV/Radio in particular being most important (I know, I know, but the whole point is mass media manipulation etc..) So, if any of you can point out ANYTHING relevant (I might get into Statutes and Case transcripts, but I dunno, it's not her Thesis or anything...) Thanks! ______________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 14:46:16 -0800 From: Brian Willoughby Subject: Those drugs (Re: your mail) ddsw1.mcs.com!zane (Sameer Parekh) | Actually, from reading _Storming Heaven_, they called it | a psychotomimetic, meaning "simulates psychosis" because | the researchers (Albert Hofmann, others) actually thought it | simulated psychosis. They thought that the fact that it could | simulate psychosis made it a very valuable tool to study | psychosis, so that they could treat it better. By taking it | themselves they could understand the psychotic state, and by | giving it to others they could examine the psychotic state in a | person without psychological training. | It wasn't used as a scare term among the researchers. The | term psychomimetic went out of use in research circles | before it became illegal in the US, because they realized that it | wasn't simulating psychosis. Maybe after the anti-LSD scare | campaign began, the propogandists saw that the researchers used | to call it a psychotomimetic and decided to transmogrife the term | to mean "induces psychosis" and say, "Look these researchers used | to say it INDUCES PSYCHOSIS." | I wasn't around during these anti-LSD scare campaigns | though, I wasn't yet born. At first, I would have disagreed, since Webster says: psy*choto*mi*met*ic \si -,kat-o-me-'met-ik, -mi-\ /adj/ [/psychot/ic + -o- + /mimetic/] (1956) :of, relating to, involving, or inducing psychotic alteration of behavior and personality (/psychotomimetic/ drugs) - psychotomimetic n - psy*choto*mi*met*i*cal*ly \-i-k(e-)le\ /adv/ However, if you look up "mimetic", it is defined as "imitative" - and definition 1 of "simulate" is "imitate" - so this supports your original meaning of "psychotomimetic" even though that word's actual entry has been propagandized. --- Brian Willoughby Software Design Engineer, BSEE NCSU BrianW@SoundS.WA.com Sound Consulting: Software Design and Development NeXTmail welcome ______________________________ From: ahawks (freud is my mother) Subject: Re: your mail Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 17:53:20 MST New fresh-scented *Scotto* (150% real fruit juices!) says: | |The fun continues... | |>I think we should give a uzi to every living individual when they turn |>18 so they can protect themselves from the violent world we live in. |>The effects of everyone having the same gun are too complex to |>predict, so let's just go ahead and do it. |>same logic, basically. | |It may be the same logical *form*, but it is not at all the same logic. LSD |and UZIs are two *distinct* entities, and it is a fallacy to compare them in |this fashion. Yet if I substituted the word pillow for uzi and gun, would you reply this way? Pillows can be dangerous, like you've said before, and can be weapons. But noone frets about giving everyone in the world a pillow. You don't have to be 21 and undergo a waiting period and background check when you walk into K-Mart to buy a pillow. A pillow is a weapon, LSD could be a weapon (here, have some wine :: what kind is it? lace...errr white! )... Getting back to the original jive of the conversation, I think it's fairly safe to say that sufficient research and planning predating action has its benefits when society as a whole is concerned. I'm diluting that statement pretty heavily from my original comments in hopes of reaching a common ground. |>Rushing into something like this without a suficient scientific |>understanding, without a sociological understanding, is IMHO just dumb |>and goes against what society has learned from itself. | |Society hasn't learned *jack* from itself. So, technology doesn't exist? |Society legalizes alcohol and |tobacco, the two most dangerous, addictive, and destructive drugs available |(short of, perhaps, ice), while restricting *marijuana* and LSD. Society is a |morass of jumbled opinions, *not* an independent entity capable of making |reasonable distinctions. I see a tendency in this discussion towards |emphasizing those users who "freak out" while basically ignoring the untold |numbers who have no problems with this substance or others like it. Well, in my own defense, I've tried to put acorss the idea that LSD is great for the right people in the right circumstances, it can also be harmful for the wrong people under the wrong circumstances. I don't see myself as Nancy Reagan or Art Linkletter, and I'm sure most of my friends I hang around would agree to that. (hehehe, quite the opposite if you know me and some of the shit I've done). Alcohol and tobacco are a must adress in this thread, of course. I agree that both are harmful. You shouldn't drive drunk, but people do anyway. You also shouldn't be peaking while you drive, but I've tried it anyway, and I know other people have. Alcohol and togbacco are a more physically addicting then LSD and marijuana, that is true, and that increases the risks of possible dangers like deaths from drunk drivers. I personally see no reason pot shouldn't be re-legalized, especially considering all the benefits of hemp. I'm wearing a shirt made with it right now, and I signed the petition here in Colorado last year. The only problem I have with marijuana comes from friends who are baked EVERY DAY. I mean, they're cool people, but I wish they would expand their minds and explore *other* aspects of life - see it from different angles, different perspectives, etc. I feel that people (or at least me, since this is my own personal philosophy) should constantly be redefining their angles and perspectives on things. If you get stoned or trip every day, you're still viewing life from one perspective no matter how infinite your mind seems - it stil all stems from LSD. Ok, for example, (I wanna make this clearer), let's say that a person agrees with the philosophy that when you're tripping, that's your unconscious mind, since you're pre-conscious mind is done away with via LSD. So, everything you see means something to you and is from your unconscious mind - nothing is repressed. However, enduring repression is another, different perspective which is, in my mind, equally valid. (If you want to get existential, this is ultimately like saying chaos is as valid as some linear design, heaven as valid as hell, the infinite as valid as the void.) In my own life, I occasionaly use alcohol, but I don't abuse it, under standards set by my self, my group of friends, or society at large. Works for me, and I don't appreciate people shoving down my throat not to drink, yet I also do not go to high schools and advocate that the legal drinking age be dropped to 14 since I've had great experiences with it. |>That's a good start, but odds are even though you've tripped a lot |>that you don't know all of yourself, otherwise, if everyone knew all |>of themselves, we would've reached the peak of human experience, and |>given that the future potentially offers growth that is proof that we |>haven't reached the high point of existence. I personally believe |>we're far from it. | |This doesn't relate to Paul's argument. Paul *knows* the risks, so it's |acceptable for him to continue tripping, even though eventually, maybe, |someday, who knows, he might freak out. And there is *no* proof that we |haven't reached the high point of existence -- *potential* does not translate |into *proof*. I like to be optimistic about the future as well, but this is a |delicate topic, and caution is required. (heh) I find proof of humanity not having reached the high point in existence in that technology exists, and continues to develop, and that our world changes. Then some people would say, well, that doesn't necessarily mean we haven't already reached the "high point" of existence - we could just be leftovers of primordial soup swirling about with no direction. But even if that's the case, we sure haven't explored the whole bowl of soup, so let's keep going. Wouldn't we be somewhat aware of it if we had already reached the high point of existence? Then it would probably be Jim-Jones^100, mass suicide. Anyway, I see existence as a sine wave. The two extremes are the balances of nature (orde v. chaos, heaven v. hell, infinite v. void, black v. white, summer v. winter, macintosh v. ibm, life v. death, objectivity v. subjectivity, reality v. fiction, noise v. silence, etc.), and as we travel along it is natural to tend to move towards one of the extremes, not to sit in the middle. This is what keeps society going, IMHO, these infinite amount of sine waves that travel along in perpindiculars and parallels and that can be zoomed in and zoomed out on, and everything becomes relative to some other point somewhere on the same or different line. [please excuse me a second while I turn on The Shamen's Re: Evolution] =) |>If you're not out there, changing your |>reality, working for success in your future reality, and if you're not |>making any contribution to society, then why live? It seems to me |>that a passivity towards the future is only anxiety rationalized. | |And someone like Baba Ram Dass, or the gang over on BUDDHA-L, might disagree |with you. And they might be right, within their own internal paradigms. That's true. i should've filled that part with tons of IMHO's. Ultimately we don't know what's right and wrong, since we don't have a reference point (ie, Origin) on those sine waves I ranted about. But, ultimately all we can do is find something that works for us as an individual, offer it to society, and respond and react to society's consensus feedback of our offering and then we may want to change our viewpoints if we encounter something from society's feedback that we didn't acknowledge before and then apply that to our lives. That's how I've come to my opinions about legalization of LSD, there were some things I overlooked in my initial opinions when I tripped of "fuck, let's just put it in the water supply". As I zoom in closer on this sine wive, I'm sure I'll refine my opinions and adjust. Scotto has helped greatly with this - I'm thinking maybe I should be less anal about my opinions - Scotto's been my zoom (woah-ho, double meaning, if you know stuff about Leri =) in this case, and the more I offer up my opinions, the more I can refine them and tune into a point that works for me as an individual and also other aspects of society. I hope Scotto does the same, I hope everyone on the net does the same - just put your opinions out there ven if you feel they're for shit. My mind just reached a gridpoint that's a tangent to another meme, and that is the old "Bury Usenet" thread that appeared on the net and in a recent issue of Intertek. Bruce Sterling, who I admire greatly, said he didn't read Usenet cuz he thought it was a waste of time. I feel that no form of communication can be a waste of time, and the above paragraph explains why I feel this way. I'm putting my opinions out there for people to consider, and the best part of all is I'm getting feedback on my opinions and can adjust them if I feel I should. PS: Tom Maddox wrote a column for Locus in which he basically said the opposite and talked about the benefits of net.communication (in which he mentioned FutureCulture, BTW!), so look out for that one. |>Again I'd like to say that some people who feel they're happy and in a |>good state of mind have had bad experiences with LSD that have the |>potential of forever altering their realiy in a way which they are |>apparently inable or unprepared to cope with. Because it's the answer |>for you doesn't mean it's the answer for everybody. | |But if it IS the answer for me, I WANT IT. End of story. End of story is ok with me...I'm subjectively poooped!! This goes back to my last couple paragraphs about putting opinions out there and shit...If it works for you, that's cool. It works for me as well, and my story is along the same lines of the alcoholic on 48 Hrs who credited LSD with saving his life - honestly, I don't know if I'd be here if I hadn't "found" acid - pre-acid I found no meaning to life, now I find every meaning in life. But again if it works for you and the people you've encountered, that doesn't necessarily imply it'll work for everybody - more research is needed, IMHO. |>BTW, is it just more or does it seem that just about everyone who |>trips frequently loses some sense of objectivity in their relation |>with their world? It's subtle in this post, it's evident on the net, |>and it's clearly visible in Timothy Leary. | |The philosophy of subjectivism clearly predates LSD use in this country, Andy. |:) Seriously, at the heart of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is the same sort of |subjective nihilism you've been discussing in this thread. It's not at all Nihilism? If I offered up complete nihilism I must've been playing devil's advocate. |subtle in this post; I know Paul rather well (comparatively speaking), and he |has certainly displayed subjective tendencies. As far as "evident on the net, |so what? The opposite is also evident; I'm certainly no more a hard core |subjectivist than I am an objectivist -- either way, I only have x amount of |time to get off while I'm here. And as for Timothy Leary, let's not forget th |fact that he is also approaching *senility*, as he himself has admitted on mor |than one occasion. He's over seventy years old, and *some* humans at that age |are past their intellectual prime. On the objective/subjective thing, you also could've said that Usenet at its essence is a subjective forum, void of clear emotion other than smileys and obvious stuff, so that my saying that people on the net are mostly subjective is just my own interpretation of what I read, which is of course subjective, which means I would be included in the group I was referring to in the first place! |>Personally and with my |>friends I've found it to not only increase the area of subjective |>reality but objective as well, but when you come to the net and talk |>about it, most people seem to lose a sense of the dimensions of |>society and sometimes even the fact that everyone is ultiamtely |>intertwined, and everyone affects everyone, and that people function |>on an infinite specrtum of sensabilities and relations. | |And you're telling me that science can *predict* what this infinity will be? |I am *not* responsible for the infinity; if I were, the infinity would go to |fucking rot. I am responsible for those things which I *choose* to be |responsible for, and primarily among those is myself. This is a great statement, I agree completely 100%. Yiu're only responsible for yourself, and even then only what you're aware of within yourself. I think that if infinity exists, then everything is intertwined so "I am yours, you are mine, you are what you are." fits well. We're all each other, someplace, somespace, sometime, somehow. |True altruism is impossible. I agree. see above. |It so happens that one of the things that makes *me* happy is |seeing *others* happy; the synergy, I've found, is wonderful and expressive. |go months at a time without touching any sort of drug whatsoever, and there ar |periods within those months where I am a subjectivist, and periods where I am |an objectivist. I refuse to be classified in such general terms. I think the majority of people are always at least a little of both. I know I am, or at least I think I know I am. My friends tell me I am, or my friends tell me they think....oh, forget it....=) My use of drugs seems comparable to yours, sometimes it dwindles greatly (once a year or less), and there's other times it might increase. And I to ogo between times of being really subjective or objectively oriented. Right now I'm in a real objective space, but that's decreasing since I've been spending more time on the net. (Mostly in this conversation!). I find myself struggling to be objective and be in an objective/concrete-reality space when I'm on the net, but it's easy when you're sitting with some friends at Village Inn at 3am - I love both, and all spaces in between. |To say "mos |people seem to lose..." makes me want to ask, "Which people in particular? |Where can I go to read them? Or is this just what Andy has seen in his corner |of the net?" That's true. Obviously I don't surf the whole net, and the forums/lists I hang around now usually tend to be fairly self-oriented, opinionated and subjectively-orientated. Particularly rave lists and newsgroup, and alt.cyberpunk, both of which deal with self-oriented people trying to get together to build some sort of community yet each individual has their own clear designs on what the community is all about. |You used to be on Leri, Andy -- how many of those folks do you |suppose would admit to being a true subjectivist? I'm still there, and I can I don't know if there's such a thing as a *true* subjectivist. |count two, perhaps three, and Paul is one of them (so if he *isn't* actually, |there ya go...) No butt-kissing intended, but Leri is the best community within the net, IMHO. It has a wide spectrum of people from varying backgrounds, with different perspectives and opinions, and who can get together and explode creatively (which further propels the community), philosophically, and can communicate on an incredibly large variety of levels. Within one post from one person you might find a poem, a political rant, a new philosophical diatribe, an acid revelation, and a summary of how that eprson is feeling about their day. It's great. I only wish I had the time which is necessary to devote to be part of the community. But I've commited myself to other parts of the net which I feel somewhat responsible for (like this list and shit). It sounds wank, but when I read Leri "I laughed, I cried." - it's light-hearted, it's serious, and it's reality. it's cool. Leri is probably a prototype of electro-commun[iti]es to be established in the future. And it's a great one. |Good topic here. The Culture of the Future will *certainly* involve |psychedelics and other mind-altering practices, and it's good to explore the |ramifications of that well in advance.... We haven't even mentioned the growing popularity of other drugs, like ecstacy, and we haven't talked about if ketamine will play a substantial role in drug culture. And smart drugs, and buddha's wearing walkman's, and mind machines, and Lilly tanks, and......... PS: I'm watching eMpTV and I just saw one of their self-promos where they put the familiar logo at the end, and it was called "the collective unconscious"....A must see for anyone with an interest in this type of stuff.....Wow, eMpTV gets hip..whoda thunk.... -- ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu FutureCulture: In/f0rmation ahawks@mindvox.phantom.com future-request@nyx.cs.du.edu ______________________________ From: ahawks (freud is my mother) Subject: Re: Anti-Hacker Hysteria... Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 18:00:58 MST New fresh-scented *Christopher L. Tumber* (150% real fruit juices!) says: | |My sociologist girfriend has to do a paper for her propaganda class. |She's considering writing about anti-hacker media hysteria/propaganda |if I can supply her with enough material. | |I have some of the obvious sources (Forbes, Stuff on the 2600 Washington |Flack, EFF stuff) but I don't want to miss anything. Specifically, |anything from the past year or so is best. With print media and TV/Radio |in particular being most important (I know, I know, but the whole point |is mass media manipulation etc..) Ok, here's some off-hand notable media stuff from the past couple years: CYberpunks by Katie Hafner and John Markoff The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling (those are both books) PumpCon/H0h0Con stuff (check out recent 2600's or ftp.eff.org) read CuD (ftp.eff.org pub/cud/cud) Phrack (ftp.eff.org pub/cud/phrack) Steve Jackson games (ftp.eff.org pub/SJG) Mindvox (telnet phantom.com) "EFF as hacker defense fund" (ftp.eff.org) Tv Shows I can remember: Geraldo's thing (I transcribed it, which is avai;lable on ftp.eff.org) (Now It Can Be Told) Hackers on Dateline NBC (LoD guys, I think I also wrote up the transcript on ftp.eff.org) There's a report on CNN right now about downloading kiddie-porn and other porn from BBSes -- ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu FutureCulture: In/f0rmation ahawks@mindvox.phantom.com future-request@nyx.cs.du.edu ______________________________ Date: 17 Jan 1993 21:56:58 -0600 (CST) From: Scotto Always willing to find a common ground... >A pillow >is a weapon, LSD could be a weapon (here, have some wine :: what kind >is it? lace...errr white! )... Heh. You'd have to be amazingly vicious to dose someone without -- I mean, heck, you'd have to work for the CIA or something. I dig. >Getting back to the original jive of the conversation, I think it's >fairly safe to say that sufficient research and planning predating >action has its benefits when society as a whole is concerned. I'm >diluting that statement pretty heavily from my original comments in >hopes of reaching a common ground. I've been really thinking about Leary's notion of LSD "training" "centers". The notion being that: if you want governmental "permission" to take LSD, you go to this center, check in, and trip with a "counsellor", and if all goes well, you've got your permission, and if something goes wrong, you're in the perfect environment to receive help. Then, when buying your LSD from the center (no more black market!), you also receive information, tips, etc. Now, if you're a hardy intrepid tripper already, this is a piece of cake, and if you know nothing about the process, this is a perfect way to find out. It guarantees some things, I think. Granted, someone could still find a way to misuse it, but so it goes in this world...I don't want my pillows taken away, either... :) >|Society hasn't learned *jack* from itself. >So, technology doesn't exist? That wasn't my point. "Technology" is in a different category to me than "sociological effects" in general. Tech is like a subcategory of the larger category. Yes, society can make groovy toys, but there is still no underlying, across-the-board accepted "ethic" that governs uses of this technology. Same with substances. >The only problem I have with marijuana comes from friends who are >baked EVERY DAY. I mean, they're cool people, but I wish they would >expand their minds and explore *other* aspects of life - Good point. Obsessive behavior seems problematic no matter what the circumstances. >Bruce Sterling, who I admire greatly, said >he didn't read Usenet cuz he thought it was a waste of time. I feel >that no form of communication can be a waste of time, and the above >paragraph explains why I feel this way. I've found that I've chosen to prioritize where I communicate. I find, for example, that I receive a great deal more satisfaction entering into discussions with the people on this list than I ever did on Usenet -- it seems that here, just as in realspace, there are forums that are more productive for communication. >But again if it works for you and the >people you've encountered, that doesn't necessarily imply it'll work >for everybody - more research is needed, IMHO. Agreed. There's a group in Boston I think that's doing some work, and I think Shulgin of course is on the case. I wonder what the procedure is for getting permission from the government to do research on psychedelics. Anyone...? >We haven't even mentioned the growing popularity of other drugs, like >ecstacy, and we haven't talked about if ketamine will play a >substantial role in drug culture. And smart drugs, and buddha's >wearing walkman's, and mind machines, and Lilly tanks, and......... Shoot, boy, we best get *busy*! :) I'm game if you are... ______________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 23:43:35 EST From: majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu (Murali) Subject: Re: your mail In message <9301171628.AA01687@nyx.cs.du.edu>, ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu (the bladerunner) wrote: :I think we should give a uzi to every living individual when they turn :18 so they can protect themselves from the violent world we live in. Winner idea, actually...give 'em the gun, train 'em, and go at it. An armed society is a polite society, man - look at the Swiss. (Is he joking, is he serious, or is it Memorex? - you decide...) :same logic, basically. I liked your post up until this point, where, :honestly I thought it became quite wierd. Life is a series of :intricate balances, and those careful balances have evolved from "just :do it" attitudes...The more advanced we become, the more careful and :delicate the balances of society. This is how we learn from our :mistakes. If we didn't learn from our misstakes, the world would be :*total* anarchy, history would *constantly* repeat itself. But since :we learn somewhat from our mistakes, we don't live in complete anarchy Who's "we", monkey-boy? (term of affection, Andy, I assure you...:) I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the rest of us live in complete anarchy constantly - sure, one of the bigger Gang Of Thugs With Guns in these parts tends to keep it pretty calm around here, but it still _always_ comes down to that - who's got the bigger guns. You do whatever you want, whenever you want, and accept the consequences. That's anarchy, to me - no rulers, except in your head. Show me a society that doesn't live in total anarchy, (and doesn't rely on some kind of deep-mass-mind-control, of course) and I'll mail you a pair of tootsie-pops. :The effects are not too complex too predict...Nothing is too complex :to predict... Andy, Andy, Andy - is that really _you_ posting from your account? Nothing too complex to predict, hm? Ever think of going into meteorology? You'd make a killing...Chaos theory, man...I suppose you're gonna give me position and velocity at the same time, too... :I think your statement is the perfect implication for :holding off until more research can be done, until we have a :relatively large understanding of the brain and the mind in relation :to hallucinations...This comes from scientific work, not just from :people like Lilly and Leary, and it also depends on technology, which :takes time.... ...and it also takes partial legalization, so's all them psycho-delic researchers don't get busted... :That's a good start, but odds are even though you've tripped a lot :that you don't know all of yourself, otherwise, if everyone knew all :of themselves, we would've reached the peak of human experience, and :given that the future potentially offers growth that is proof that we :haven't reached the high point of existence. I personally believe :we're far from it. So because we're far off, we should abandon what should possibly be the "next step"? I'm not sure what you're getting at here...yes, of course we're way way way far away from Maximum Potential, but does that mean we should give up _now_? :If you're not out there, changing your :reality, working for success in your future reality, and if you're not :making any contribution to society, then why live? It seems to me :that a passivity towards the future is only anxiety rationalized. :Anxiety of the unknown seems practically inherent in people. If that :wasn't the case we wouldn't have prejudice, racism, wars, etc. Have I read you wrong here or somewhere else? You seem to be contradicting yourself elsewhere, unless I'm reading you wrong - which, as always, is a possibility... :Again I'd like to say that some people who feel they're happy and in a :good state of mind have had bad experiences with LSD that have the :potential of forever altering their realiy in a way which they are :apparently inable or unprepared to cope with. Because it's the answer :for you doesn't mean it's the answer for everybody. Yep - it's a risk...just like anything else that's gonna push the edge, push you a bit farther along the Path...no, it's probably (no, definitely) not for everyone. So, it won't become _mandatory_ if it's fully decriminalized, but it will be there for those who feel that they're ready for the jump... :BTW, is it just more or does it seem that just about everyone who :trips frequently loses some sense of objectivity in their relation :with their world? Of course. It seems that way to me, too...same with pot, nicotene, and most other drugs. It's really hard to get over, and even harder to _see_ it in yourself, unless someone else points it out to you...thanks for being a weight on the other side of the balance, Andy. Murali majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu "I am forever in your debt!" Marc Majcher@P.O. Box 156 | "Nonsense...how can a friend Amherst, NY 14226 | be in debt?" Voice: (716) 834-1648 -From Russia With Love _________________________________________________________________________ | | | That's all for today! | | To send a message to the list: future@nyx.cs.du.edu | | To subscribe/unsubscribe/change format: future-request@nyx.cs.du.edu | | All other requests: future-request@nyx.cs.du.edu | | List Maintainer is: (andy [aka hawkeye]) ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu | |_________________________________________________________________________| | | | The opinions expressed in FutureCulture are those of the individual | | author only. | |_________________________________________________________________________|