the man who made LSD is nearly 100

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,521
Location
the West Coast
i've never tried LSD. no interest. i've seen it really screw people up. however, i was struck by a few lines in this article about the creator of LSD:

[q]
Mr. Hofmann will turn 100 on Wednesday, a milestone to be marked by a symposium in nearby Basel on the chemical compound that he discovered and that famously unlocked the Blakean doors of perception, altering consciousnesses around the world. As the years accumulate behind him, Mr. Hofmann's conversation turns ever more insistently around one theme: man's oneness with nature and the dangers of an increasing inattention to that fact.

"It's very, very dangerous to lose contact with living nature," he said, listing to the right in a green armchair that looked out over frost-dusted fields and snow-laced trees. A glass pitcher held a bouquet of roses on the coffee table before him. "In the big cities, there are people who have never seen living nature, all things are products of humans," he said. "The bigger the town, the less they see and understand nature." And, yes, he said, LSD, which he calls his "problem child," could help reconnect people to the universe.

Rounding a century, Mr. Hofmann is physically reduced but mentally clear. He is prone to digressions, ambling with pleasure through memories of his boyhood, but his bright eyes flash with the recollection of a mystical experience he had on a forest path more than 90 years ago in the hills above Baden, Switzerland. The experience left him longing for a similar glimpse of what he calls "a miraculous, powerful, unfathomable reality."

"I was completely astonished by the beauty of nature," he said, laying a slightly gnarled finger alongside his nose, his longish white hair swept back from his temples and the crown of his head. He said any natural scientist who was not a mystic was not a real natural scientist. "Outside is pure energy and colorless substance," he said. "All of the rest happens through the mechanism of our senses. Our eyes see just a small fraction of the light in the world. It is a trick to make a colored world, which does not exist outside of human beings."

He became particularly fascinated by the mechanisms through which plants turn sunlight into the building blocks for our own bodies. "Everything comes from the sun via the plant kingdom," he said

[...]

"LSD spoke to me," Mr. Hofmann said with an amused, animated smile. "He came to me and said, 'You must find me.' He told me, 'Don't give me to the pharmacologist, he won't find anything.' "


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/i...an.html?pagewanted=1&incamp=article_popular_1


[/q]



what strikes me is how much his experiences and convictions -- that we are more than we can merely sense -- has in common with many religious discussions we've had on here. it seems to me that telling someone to reach out to god, to call to him and he will listen, to seek and find him, that God can't be understood but must be felt and experienced ... these seem not so far from the experience that Hoffman was trying to replicate in his lab.

so, to pre-empt -- i am not comparing the taking of illegal drugs to the practice of organized religion.

i am, however, trying to find a link between drugs, between religion, between our needs of what we might call "a religious experience" -- i have those every 4 years or so when i go to a U2 concert -- and what this might tell us about human nature, about ways in which we are almost hardwired to feel incomplete (i.e., the sense that we all have of "there must be more than just this" or the flip-side, "is this all?").

bono has spoken about this, how he's not a part of drug culture, but what he does admire about those who do drugs is that they are ready and willing to admit to the "other side" of life -- that we are more than just chemical compounds, that we are a part of nature and the universe, that feeling of "one-ness" that some feel when on drugs, when in the throes of intercourse, while singing in church, while in the midst of zen meditation, or when the lights come on during "streets."

perhaps LSD is right -- this isn't it.

or, perhaps the feeling of connectedness that can only be produced through LSD (or U2, or religion, or mediation) is proof that, no, there is nothing external to us.

that, yes, this is all.
 
Last edited:
Whatever gets you through the night...or takes you to the light.
 
Interesting...........I admit it, I tried LSD in high school. Not a good experience for me...........but that was when everyone and their brother was trying it.
 
BonosSaint said:
Whatever gets you through the night...or takes you to the light.


perhaps they are the same thing.

both the "what" as well as "getting through the night" and "taking you towards the light" might be the same process.
 
I'm sure it's been a psychedelic 100 years for him - 6 ft flowers and purple cats :D
 
I read a quote once by an Indian guru in the sixties regarding LSD. I can't remember it word for word but the gist of it was that the same experience that can be achieved through LSD can also be achieved through meditation. The difference is that it takes years and years of careful practice to get to that place through meditation. LSD allows you to get to that same place almost instantly but the experience only lasts for a few hours.

He said that taking LSD was like visiting a saint. Why just visit a saint when you could actually become one?

There was a suggestion that Americans with our fast food culture want instant gratification without any of the work involved to achieve that state naturally.

I'm not trying to say that LSD can't be useful. I have had some very good experiences with it myself. It's a tool and if it used in the right way it can be beneficial. It can also be abused just like anything else.
 
A very interesting article.
I last did LSD in 1983 and had a similar experience - I had done "acid" about a dozen times up till then but it was NEVER that powerful. This was what someone called "liquid acid" - the real stuff!!! Within a half hour I had my arms firmly implanted in a huge tree which proceeded to tell me it knew me better than I knew myself. It's a loooong story of an even longer night. Amazing things happened that night - the likes of which I'll never forget. Needless to say I never did LSD again. I had been through the "third door" and realised how lucky I was to have made it back.
 
With the technology we have today imagine the possibilities of an MK Ultra project for use in interrogating terrorism suspects, no physical torture and could yield better results.
 
I never did LSD and I think I´ll never do it because I don´t know where I might end up. And that connection to nature he´s talking about, well, I don´t have the feeling I need LSD for that.
 
Very interesting discussion.
The hunger for religious ecstasy is cross-cultural and persistent throughout history, even prehistory.
People who use LSD for religious experience are not that different than athletes who return again and again to the endorphin rush.

Anu
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I never did LSD and I think I´ll never do it because I don´t know where I might end up. And that connection to nature he´s talking about, well, I don´t have the feeling I need LSD for that.



but what does it say about the feeling if it can be induced by something like LSD? does it make that feeling any less authentic?
 
Irvine511 said:
but what does it say about the feeling if it can be induced by something like LSD? does it make that feeling any less authentic?

I think that's pretty subjective to equate the two. Because they are described using similar language does not make them the same.

What I'd be interested in seeing is some kind of scientific experiment on brain chemistry in these experiences.
 
Irvine511 said:




but what does it say about the feeling if it can be induced by something like LSD? does it make that feeling any less authentic?

No, why? First, I don´t know what feeling he is talking about. I only notice similarities. Second, if it is the same feeling, it does not depend on how that feeling is triggered. If you want to use LSD to get in touch with a "higher" existence, if you use meditation, or if you use no conscious way at all - the ways are different, but that does not make the feeling less authentic.
 
Calluna said:
Why just visit a saint when you could actually become one?

:up: Visiting that state artificially and prematurely can be very destructive. Most people lose their balance and sometimes their minds. That's also the problem with kundalini yoga. I don't know any longterm practicioners of kundalini yoga who aren't a little crazy. As my spiritual teacher says, "slow and steady wins the race."
 
Last edited:
stammer476 said:
I think that's pretty subjective to equate the two. Because they are described using similar language does not make them the same.

What I'd be interested in seeing is some kind of scientific experiment on brain chemistry in these experiences.

:up:

I'm not sure we can chemically achieve a true spiritual experience.
 
nbcrusader said:


:up:

I'm not sure we can chemically achieve a true spiritual experience.



by definition, can a spiritual experience be indisputably true?

how do we measure these things beyond the word of the person who experiences it?

i doubt anyone has the same experience at a U2 show that i do -- perhaps some have better experiences, others not quite as heightened, but at the end of the day, you only have my word to go on.

i suppose i doubt anyone's ability to point to what is a "true" experience and what is "less than true," or to say that some contact with that sense of otherness through, say, Zen Meditation is less authentic than contact via drugs.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


No, why? First, I don´t know what feeling he is talking about. I only notice similarities. Second, if it is the same feeling, it does not depend on how that feeling is triggered. If you want to use LSD to get in touch with a "higher" existence, if you use meditation, or if you use no conscious way at all - the ways are different, but that does not make the feeling less authentic.



so if there are many different paths -- meditation, prayer, drugs -- to this feeling of connectedness and otherness, does this then negate the possibility of one kind of authentic spiritual experience? it doesn't matter how you get there just so long as you arrive? what, then, might this say about distinctions made between both different religions, different meditative practices, and even different drugs, if they are all leading to the same endpoint? are such distinctions ultimately moot? or are they still important? and if so, how?
 
Irvine511 said:
so if there are many different paths -- meditation, prayer, drugs -- to this feeling of connectedness and otherness, does this then negate the possibility of one kind of authentic spiritual experience? it doesn't matter how you get there just so long as you arrive? what, then, might this say about distinctions made between both different religions, different meditative practices, and even different drugs, if they are all leading to the same endpoint? are such distinctions ultimately moot? or are they still important? and if so, how?

That would be to assume that they are all "the same endpoint." And based on subjective descriptions, per above, that's quite an assumption.
 
Irvine511 said:
by definition, can a spiritual experience be indisputably true?

how do we measure these things beyond the word of the person who experiences it?

You can't box the spiritual experience by scientific methods
 
Irvine511 said:


by definition, can a spiritual experience be indisputably true?

how do we measure these things beyond the word of the person who experiences it?

Why would you want/need to measure them? They are sacred experiences for the individual and shouldn't even be discussed with another, imo. To discuss them could only come from the ego. I know what you're saying--you want proof. But the serious devotee of a spiritual practice involving meditation has "true spiritual experiences" all the time and rarely ever discusses them. I feel that to base one's beliefs on another's experiences or because of something you read in a book is futile. Everyone must have their own direct experience and no one can take it from them.
 
stammer476 said:


That would be to assume that they are all "the same endpoint." And based on subjective descriptions, per above, that's quite an assumption.



so if the endpoint is inherently subjective, it seems as if nothing exists beyond the sensory capacities of the subject.
 
nbcrusader said:


You can't box the spiritual experience by scientific methods



oh, i agree.

but you made the distinction between a spritual experience and a true spiritual experience.

what's the difference?
 
joyfulgirl said:


Why would you want/need to measure them? They are sacred experiences for the individual and shouldn't even be discussed with another, imo. To discuss them could only come from the ego. I know what you're saying--you want proof. But the serious devotee of a spiritual practice involving meditation has "true spiritual experiences" all the time and rarely ever discusses them. I feel that to base one's beliefs on another's experiences or because of something you read in a book is futile. Everyone must have their own direct experience and no one can take it from them.



i totally agree.

but what does the subjectiveness of the experience say about the idea of a "spiritual experience" as a whole? can we say nothing about them? can we regard some as more authentic than others? can we say that "my spiritual experience in Tibet was more authentic than your spiritual experience eating pizza at Pepe's in New Haven?" are there rules?
 
Irvine511 said:
so if the endpoint is inherently subjective, it seems as if nothing exists beyond the sensory capacities of the subject.

I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Experiences are experiences, and their inherently subjective nature requires that they can't be weighed, measured, and seriously compared. The scientific measuring of brain chemistry may one day give us a glimpse of that, but we're not there yet.

But it seems to me that you're seeking to understand what conclusions can be drawn from the similarity of these experiences. Quite frankly, I don't see any. To me, spiritual experiences aren't grounds for a valid defense of any faith persuasion, and therefore can't validate or invalidate a faith.

I've had spiritual experiences, and while they are nice, they aren't why I'm a Christian. Does that help?
 
Irvine511 said:


i totally agree.

but what does the subjectiveness of the experience say about the idea of a "spiritual experience" as a whole? can we say nothing about them? can we regard some as more authentic than others? can we say that "my spiritual experience in Tibet was more authentic than your spiritual experience eating pizza at Pepe's in New Haven?" are there rules?

Spiritual experiences by definition are subjective. The devotee doesn't need science to tell them they've had a spiritual experience any more than you, for example, need science to tell you that being gay isn't a choice. So the whole idea of "proving" the existance of God or of spiritual experiences is kind of a joke really.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


yes

no

yes and no

neither yes nor no




well, that's not very helpful.

i'd like to have a discussion about this stuff, but it does seem as if we need to agree on some objective rules and vocabulary if we are going to have a dialogue about subjective experiences.

also, people can and do pull objective statements from their subjective experiences. can't we do something of the same?
 
Back
Top Bottom