Well if anybody asks what this website is about, I’d prefer to have any other topic I am making it about, other than the regulation of psychedelics; and yet by default that topic keeps on cropping up in my thinking, as though in need of being voiced. In fact, this link is the direction I wanted to take the entire discourse about regulation, if it could be called discourse, which I think not. I think if we begin any kind of Western style discourse about psychedelics, outside of very strictly regulated science, within the guidance of pre-existing indigenous regulation patterns that are equitably rigorous and strict, we are doomed to fail to communicate reality. Thus I begin this segment of my writing for my website, with total self contempt.
Nevertheless, some of the folks who read my website’s expressions of my point of view, might be seeking a more Western styled discursive approach to the topic of the regulation of psycho-active substances. I want to say “naturally occurring” psycho-active substances, but was tripped up inside my own mind by recalling the extensive range of pills which chemists working illicitly for organized crime could have been producing. And I want to immediately dismiss all such substances, as having been based upon the providence of love for the oceans, and all the patterns of cause and effect within such illicit chemistry, having a relationship with microbial life forms living on the floating piles of tiny pieces of plastic in the oceans. But straight away I have branched away from the Westerner’s style thought processes of my stated intent, into a point of view which is in origin indigenous, and orients via how to relate any thought form with the natural biodiversity.
This is a large part of what my website is about, is how to engage the Western mind in understanding the indigenous Australian approach to the regulation of Dreaming, and that this is the same process as how all psychedelics need be regulated, is simply a co-incidence which keeps me bogged down in trying to provide words around the topic of psychedelics. Some indigenous persons might agree, and assert that the discrimination by nation states against indigenous persons in general, was the same form of discrimination as against drugs and drug users; while other indigenous persons might prefer the silence of having no need associate themselves with drugs, even the psychedelics.
Nevertheless, an event called Entheogenesis Australis exists here in Australia, at which much discussion takes place around the regulation of psychedelics, perhaps never arriving at the conclusion all who attend are seeking. After all, the psychedelics, like all other medicines called drugs because of a narcotizing effect, of temporary loss of total normal sensabilities to the solid matter world, are themselves always a process rather than a conclusion. A means rather than an ends.
And still my words are all so much waffling on without stating any perspective in clarity. One matter, however is as clear as day, in that we all face a circumstance of the history of prohibition being impossible to shake free of as if that had never happened. And thus immediately we are in a set up, which poses the potential that the legislation is correct, and a real risk was imminent upon us all, if prohibition had never occurred. But the discussion of risk itself becomes, if not problematic, then at risk of becoming problematic, in this context.
That any potential for risk existed, was much a product of the mindset of modern Western medical science, having defined how we Westerners think about our health. Of course there will be disagreement, and some Westerners point to the potential for a darker side of the story than our health care system can warrant, being related with a series of phenomenon pre-existent within indigenous schools of thought. However, in my own training, in indigenous Australian Ngungkari contextual reality, there is just one rule for giving a person a psychedelic; and the rule is that whoever is giving the psychedelic, need be certain, (probably through their own use of the same psychedelic as well as via all other means socially acceptable, yet never always directly only through their own use of the same or any other psychedelic), of no risk, and in that the result will have social benefit as well as personal.
Clearly we all need avoid a system of thinking, in which the processes of avoiding risks, were the method by which risking whatever-negative-outcome-anyone-feared was at risk of becoming manifest, when no such risk exists in reality outside of that particular risk management methodology. In theory avoiding such thinking is no problem, and in practice, we need be guided by how we feel about each our own personal safety as well as general social safety. Now in my mind, if a system of health care depended upon double blind placebo controlled experiments, within only a small sample size of persons who all have a different culture than my own, I am not safe, and so I might want to ignore modern Western medical science. And then the matter arises of how legal reform need accommodate such facts.
Yet meanwhile, I maybe already inhabiting an expertise in managing the way the local entheogens, (both Native and foreign introduced species, and here I am asserting that by “local entheogens” I am intending nothing that was illegal to grow in the state of Queensland Australia), that nobody needed worry about legislating about, are enabling my mind, through my inherent and innate sensibility of my own safety. And I think we all should avoid so much as contemplating what English speakers can refer to as the “worst case scenario“, as the way of risk management solving. Solutions can’t manifest out of negative feedback loops, not unless the negative feedback loops is also self expanding, such that it becomes also inclusive of the solution to itself, or at least inclusive of an external insight into itself having always been its own solution as a diminishing return upon itself.
And if political processes can’t engage with me and how I think, then I don’t think of the methodology of politics, and instead I gauge what is correct process, according to the need to avoid politics, and hence avoid any point of view which posits itself as if defined by what it disagreed with, rather than simply expressing its being a point of view. Instead I remember a story I got told, about the Statistician who was diagnosed with a disease that had a 100% fatality rate, and had to cure himself of his own belief in statistics, hence also cure himself of having a profession, before he could find cure of his disease. He succeeded and is cured. Perhaps alike becoming cured of wanting to produce a documentary about any psychedelic, (I have had this experience, of thinking for too long, about how it could perhaps be possible, before concluding it can’t be done).
On that note, it is good that I defer the potential for discourse, to an external source, in that today I received via a Facebook comment, a link to this webinar linked here, from Jerónimo Mazarassa, who is the first male speaker in the video in the link. Really there is no point having more to say, as both men spoke very well about their current know how, as Westerners. But I am able to add, just in case anybody needs more pointless waffle, that I have had a dream from the Spirit of Baiame, about the regulation of psychedelics through modern Western medical science, needing us all to exclude anybody diagnosed as autistic from who we might share psychedelics with. That meaning in the dream, is that even if they ask and seek the correct process, a psychedelic can’t become what the autistic needed.
Since my dreams corroborate what the second male in the linked video, Marc Baños Aixalà, reports, in that social anhedonia, is the only potential contraindication, in being a potential pre-cursor of psychosis; it seems that I am warranted to give voice to a kind of dream I might not normally mention. I don’t even want to contemplate how dreadful the experience of an autistic person could be if a tendency to obssessive compulsive attitude towards psychedelics were to emerge, but that I mention my avoiding the contempation, is that I happen to know persons who have social anhedonia supposedly by cause of addiction to opium derivatives, and addicts of opium derivatives often have an autism like internal self regard. Specifically in one example, a heroin habit in combination with frontal lobal brain injury from childhood, and the two conditions were also combined with all the symptoms of “Hallucinagen Persistent Perception Disorder”.
Baiame/Bhyame advises me frequently in my dreams, albeit I am seldom among his more obedient daughters. However in certain of his advice, which I always obey, I find further reason to give his lesson here more voice by adding my own input. There is a very important rule for sustaining a culture in which we include an individual’s dream within our social discourse. It is the same rule which prohibits me from making a documentary movie about psychedelics. The rule is, that whatever information we receive, we need sustain in the exact same level we receive it within, and to sustain a dream we may only speak of it so long as it continues to be a dream after we have spoken. That fact tends to incite others to blame anybody who speaks of any dream, explaining why the Rainbow Serpent people always inhabit the lowest of cultural forms, and why Joseph in the Bible became rejected by his own family.
Of course I might be fool enough to think it possible that you readers will not automatically apply the same towards myself, and consider me the outsider who spoke too soon, other wise I could not conceivably be writing. I am naïve, and that it is by choice as much as cultural custom, is really no choice at all when a man is causing that I find no better solution than to speak up, even if he wants me to appear as though faulted in voicing his own concerns, or lack of. So I will reveal two further of my own dreams, so as to contextualise this writing in your mind, as kind of weird and outside the normal rules of social boundary keeping. I once had an unnerving encounter with members of the Canberra groups of the Gurdjieff Society, and international organisation founded through the followers of Georges Ivanovitch Gurdjieff having wished continue his work. Then some years later, after having taken them to task for having broken their own rules, I had a dream, in which all the imagery is readily able to be associated with Gurdjieff’s writing. In my dream, I am inside the spaceship “Occassion”, and being pushed out, and about to fall, as in the kind of constantly falling dream which one of the members of the Gurdjieff Society used to talk about, unfortunately for himself. But instead of a constant fall, I am being given clear advice from family, to make certain I have my landing device handy. And on the way down, I pull a blow up life raft out of my pocket, and it inflates automatically, and I instinctively place it underneath myself, before landing in a pond. At the same time, on the way down, I am calling out, towards all the Gurdjieff Society members I have happened to meet over some many years, I am calling out “look out, all my dreams are coming real, … look out below, everything you have of me in your dreams is going to become your reality”.
Of course if I have used such a dream as an excuse to justify writing about my dreams without your needing blame me, then it is just as an excuse. And is needing to be properly counterbalanced by another dream I once had, also with family. In this dream, it is being reported towards me by the cause of my own uprising in Spirit, that none of my dreams in the life of this body are of his cause, and thus none are real. I am readily able extrapolate that not even this dream of nothing being real will be real, but only because of the vibe of the dream, by comparison with the vibe of those few aforementioned dreams in this writing. So see, now I know, by comparative vibe, which dream I dream will be real. But I am quite unable convey that information towards yourselves as readers, short of advising that reading Gurdjieff’s writing can prove relevant.
And meanwhile, I can’t concieve of any better reason why I may have need to put into words any of my thinking about psychedelics. But I liked the video in this link here, specifically I like the patterns of rule keeping within cultural forms which are syncretic combinations of an indigenous Animist belief and Christianity. And this lore of the Amazonian cultures, revealed in the linked video as of Santo Diame, that Ayahuasca can’t be given, without first being asked for, solves much of my thinking, which is only a step ahead in respect of how to know whether one is able to sponsor a newcomer. I think what I learned watching the linked video, can be described as: a fast, an ask, and a mast! Mast because it rhymes with fast, and as the way to enable a boat catches a wind, is an appropriate social metaphor for a sponsoring person who introduces, inducts, initiates another into a sub-cultural paradigm of psychedelics being in use. A demonstration of self restraint and self discipline and limiting of pleasant activities including food intake; a question arising which I might only believe possibly existing in anybody’s mind, by my presuming they are already now a witness of a difference in others who already have a certain kind of positive experience of a psychedelic; and a social network of traditional knowhow with guidance in how to include a newcomer.
Indigenous Australian traditions are often much embedded in the restraints of our physical environment. For example, Duboisia hopwoodii grows at both ends of every major walking route across the deserts of this land, where food is scarce, and the question of how to survive is constant, and yet human society is surviving. Fasting and famine is the constant stable social basis for communicating. If any question about any resource of the land is arising, it is about how to pass through the lands of others in safety, and such guidance is often given in accord with the location of Pituri, (often Duboisia hopwoodii, but not exclusively). Social exclusion was always the most severe sanction and penalty, and normally associated with the end of reason to accord belief in life. Hence, if somebody can inhabit enough self discipline to approach a doctor with reputed credibility simultaneously in both Western medical science and legislative systems of regulation, and describe any matter of any kind of ill health, mental, social, emotional, or physical; and can also describe themselves to be inhabiting a behavioural regime self-discipline enough, such as that the doctor will not be afraid of causing an addictive character trait to loom large, then the requirement of a fast is somewhat being met. For example, a General Practitioner is already attending to the need that a patient is not obese. And if the patient asks their GP to prescribe a psychedelic, the GP then need only ascertain that the patient really is able to fast beyond only avoiding obesity, and also ascertain that the patient is not disabled by any condition, (such as autism spectrum disorders), which includes the symptom of social anhedonia; and then the GP can provide a referral into a social context in which somebody with experience of a particular psychedelic, can get to know the patient, and take it from there.
Perhaps my only point is, that it ought be no problem for legislators to enable Western medical science practitioners in such a way as I have described; especially since otherwise, the legislators might become their own self fulfilled risk management loss. Solutions are always far more simple than the problems we are all at risk of perceiving whenever we seek knowledge of the problems, as if only to provide an income for risk managers, who might themselves seek to further the reasons we have for harbouring problems, as if to thereby guarantee their own income from ourselves.
My only advice might be that “best practice” is to keep autistic persons out of the insurance industry, … no, just kidding, the autistic can do what they like, and as I believe the autistic know themselves well enough to know they don’t want to have to need to become an acturist, for fear of worsening their disease, (and ought well be capable of getting everybody else’s social anhedonia in hand, but only if they wanted to help out in these matters), as far as I am able to perceive, the regulation story is no problem whatsoever. Truthfully, all we need surrender into, is our collective innate understanding, that if anybody is unwilling consume any substance, or engage in any specific activity, they have a right to say “no”.