🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <747@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes:
>In article <1290@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes:
>>In article <27471@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) writes:
>>> Timothy Leary did some interesting work on personality and behavior,

>> [ some Leary-bashing deleted ]

I guess I should have expected exactly this kind of attack from someone
who obviously knows nothing about the subject matter.  I hesitated to
even mention his name for exactly this reason, but this only reinforces
the point I was making by bringing his name up.  Because he is infamous,
for whatever reason, most people automatically discount what he has to
say without even examining the ideas.  Some are willing to post this
kind of trash as if they had the confidence that "everybody knows" X
is a nut, drug addict, or whatever, and therefore anything he says is
not worth considering.

Why don't you try thinking for yourself next time.

>>> He has now begun
>>> to popularize this work through the medium of the personal computer.

>>Anything to make a buck, why not a book as well??

>Leary's drug phase in the 60's was not exactly an oportunistic career move.
>Quite the opposite, he sacrificed a promising career for something he believed 
>in.  The environment that T.L. helped create in the 60's was the opposite of
>"Anything to make a buck".  That phrase properly belongs to the 80's and the
>environment Ronald "Just say no" Reagan helped to create.

In view of the ultimate consequences of his drug "activism," it clearly
was not oportunistic.  I wonder what, if anything, he would do differently
with the bennefit of hindsight.  Most people do not realize that there
was no hysteric atmosphere surounding "psychedelic" drugs when he began
his work.  At the time, he and many other researchers considered themselves
to be doing legitimate research.  The subsequent hysteria, prohibition,
and infamy almost smells of a conspiracy, but why?

>>> He is as provocative and fresh as ever.  Try the Mind Mirror, and
>>> meet your future self.

>>Yeah, I always wanted to meet my future self, defined by a binary stucture
>>put together by a man who messed up a great deal of people by advocating
>>they use such fantasticly healthy things like LSD-25.

>As I remember it, Leary explained to people that the "set and setting" were
>very important factors in an LSD-25 experience.  He did not advocate taking
>LSD-25 for thrills.

No, he did not.  In fact, when asked about the use of drugs at later dates,
he indicated that he was not interested in the drugs themselves.  He always
saw them as tools, not an end in themselves.

>>Good choice, if I had been here at school the night he was here to promote
>>himself, I think I would have at least burned some of his books, just
>>to make him mad, then I would have asked him to pay my cousin's rehab bill
>>for the time he spent recovering from drug experimentation.
>>(yes this was due to the environment that T.L. helped create in the '60's)

>I doubt your cousin is recovering from LSD experimentation.  In fact, I
>doubt he ever took it at all.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  T.L. never had much
>good to say about heroin or quaaludes or the drugs being abused today. LSD
>is not addictive.  Nor has it the potential for profit making that todays
>street drugs have.

This is hard to say, from my reading of his autobiography, _Flashbacks_,
it is possible that many so-called "bad-trips" were the result of negative
"set" produced by the drug hysteria itself.  He reports zero "bad-trips"
as a result of their work with controlled set and setting.  Also, its not
a particularly good idea to "play" with this type of thing, a little like
practicing psycotherapy without any training, there is potential for
damage as with any improperly used tool.

As to other drugs, you are correct.  In the book he recounts a brief
experimentation with heroin, and basically says that it is not useful
as a "mind-tool."  I use the word "experimentation" correctly, in the
research sense.  Leary among others takes the view that the researcher
must have first hand experience with his tools to understand what is
being produced (especially when subjective experience is involved).
This carries with it the ethic that you should not use treatments that
you would not be willing to apply to yourself.  I don't think there
would be as many inhumane treatments such as electro-shock therapy,
etc. if more scientists practiced this ethic.

>This should probably be retitled and directed to different news groups.
>Anyone know which? (we don't get 'alt' groups here)

Maybe, but it does continue the thread that originally started it.  Only
the Leary-bashing took the discussion off on this tangent.  If people
refrain from this type of thing, I don't see a reason to move it.

Gerry Gleason