Is Expanding Consciousness Ethical?

Is Expanding Consciousness Ethical?

purkinje	Jan 12, 2004, 06:46 AM Post #1
Newbie Group: Full Member Posts: 33 Joined: Jan 12, 2004 Member No.: 914	I've read someone's post on here referring to expanding consciousness using drugs as analogous to an athlete taking steroids. Is this a legitimate analogy? What about expanding consciousness in general, is this even ethical? What sort of regulation would we need to have in place?

sbhenderson	Jan 12, 2004, 12:32 PM Post #2
Awakening Group: Basic Member Posts: 141 Joined: Dec 13, 2003 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 804	Hi, this is Suzette.... who you quoted... every now and then I get "soap box" ideas, and am motivated to share... they are not hard and fast personal laws, and have been known to change, sometimes due to enlightenment. The mind is such a fascinating object, especially considering how little of it is even used. Then there are those that are perceived as 'simple' people, who have no desire to expand. Without enlightenment and expansion, there would not be social levels... those who invent and are artists, and those who will forever be the janitors. So, hoping no one gets ruffled by this, this is an example only, of social levels. Without enlightenment, and the realm of new ideas and inventions of creativity that can spring forth... would leave the world as simple, and seemingly somewhat gray. Also, I have always felt that my own enlightenment has led to levels of increased maturity, and my personal happiness. With enlightenment has come greater peace and joy within me, and it has broadened my ability as a healer, ( I am a massage therapist). Enlightenment can come without planning, without warning... like opening a safe. Sometimes we can have 'glimpses' of what feels to be right and true, and then the moment passes. Just like the tumblers locking in as the dial is turned. One day, a thought process might become completely clear and we can see a big picture, as if the last number has been dialed, and the safe door has been opened. I call it a "light bulb moment". Anyway, sorry this is kind of long... but your comment really motivated me... thanks, sbhenderson

purkinje	Jan 12, 2004, 12:39 PM Post #3
Newbie Group: Full Member Posts: 33 Joined: Jan 12, 2004 Member No.: 914	thanks sbhenderson for the clarification. But the question remains, is it ethical to expand consciousness? What if there were pills and devices available today (which there are) that everyone knew (which they don't) could dramatically expand consciousness, but only very rich people could afford them? In this scenario, only rich people could expand their consciousness. Is this ethical? Alternatively, if we have the means for expanding consciousness, is it ethical not to use these means?

sbhenderson	Jan 12, 2004, 12:44 PM Post #4
Awakening Group: Basic Member Posts: 141 Joined: Dec 13, 2003 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 804	I don't know if "ethical" would be an appropriate term, since enlightenment can happen with or without assistance... sometimes it just happens with external stimulation... even siezure can be stimulated with intense light or specific sound frequency... and enlightenment from substances is typically known to be a temporary "enhancement"... when it comes down to it.... we are still ultimately stuck with what nature provided us. Interesting topic though... are you primarily interested in this subject?

purkinje	Jan 12, 2004, 12:52 PM Post #5
Newbie Group: Full Member Posts: 33 Joined: Jan 12, 2004 Member No.: 914	Bioethics is a sideways interest of mine. I agree with you. I see an analogy between the ethics of expanding consciousness and the ethics of genetically enhancing your progeny through artificial means. People have concerns which are legitimate. It gets dull when the debate degenerates down to the 'haves' versus the 'have nots'. More interesting are the ramifications to society from individuals opting to expand their consciousness, and how widespread this expansion of consciousness can be made. Sometimes I think I just like to debate.

Dan	Jan 12, 2004, 01:52 PM Post #6
God Group: Basic Member Posts: 1908 Joined: May 01, 2003 From: Sri Danananda Member No.: 96	the moral of the story of right vs. wrong is the struggle from ground-state suffering toward the mythical stable utopia. The question is, what is the asymptotic result of the action in question? The moral action is believed to yield a net gain in this sense, and the ethical action is similarly understood as beneficial.

Laz	Jan 13, 2004, 02:02 AM Post #7
Demi-God Group: Full Member Posts: 663 Joined: Jun 17, 2003 Member No.: 255	Hi guys, Hmmm, ethics... I feel the following to be true: Ethics are transitory guidelines in life and are not hard and fast; lasting rules. They are subject to politics, fashion, scientific understanding, etc. Drugs can be a short-cut to an enlightened state, and do not yield lasting results. They do however provide the user with an experience to remember and strive for by other means. Expanded consciousness should be everyones goal in life, we all have the potential to do this, there is no rich/poor divide here. I believe we should be asking ourselves; is it ethical not to expand your mind by whatever means? I believe that if one is a "simple person", one should be ashamed

Janus	Jan 13, 2004, 06:54 AM Post #8
Newbie Group: Basic Member Posts: 26 Joined: Nov 30, 2003 Member No.: 776	"is it ethical not to expand your mind by whatever means?" or "is it ethical to expand your mind by whatever means?" or are you even drawing this distinction?

Laz	Jan 13, 2004, 07:45 AM Post #9
Demi-God Group: Full Member Posts: 663 Joined: Jun 17, 2003 Member No.: 255	Sorry, bad English there. What I should have said was: I believe that everyone should try to expand there minds in any way that they see fit, regardless of ethics, political correctness, or law. To do the opposite, and accept all that we are told without question, is a waste of a life and a consciousness. To re-use one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes to illustrate my feelings further: "But to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors and the whole marvellous uncertainty of existance and not to question, not to tremble with the desire and joy of questioning, not even to hate him who does not ask questions, perhaps even to be thoroughly entertained by him - that is what I feel to be contemptible, and it is this feeling I seek first of all in everyone I meet."

Janus	Jan 13, 2004, 07:53 AM Post #10
Newbie Group: Basic Member Posts: 26 Joined: Nov 30, 2003 Member No.: 776	but that Nietzsche quote is about contempt for people who are self-satisfied. Are you saying you agree with Nietzsche?

Laz	Jan 13, 2004, 08:01 AM Post #11
Demi-God Group: Full Member Posts: 663 Joined: Jun 17, 2003 Member No.: 255	Absolutely, self-satisfaction suggests to me a closed mind as opposed to an open and questioning one, and that is something I find deplorable.

rhymer	Jan 13, 2004, 04:27 PM Post #12
Supreme God Group: Global Mod Posts: 2060 Joined: Feb 27, 2003 From: Wigan, UK Member No.: 385	Each should strive with whatever they have available to maximise their own potential. They can do no more than that, after all is said and done!

yougene	Jun 04, 2004, 04:08 PM Post #13
Newbie Group: Basic Member Posts: 5 Joined: Jun 03, 2004 Member No.: 2679	Humanity has evolved technologically to the point where we risk destroying ourselves. Countless ego's constantly fighting for power. How can the world of nanotechnology coexist within the world of self-destructive beings. How can other potentially dangerous technologies exist with us. This is a matter of survival and avoiding destruction on scales not ever seen by human eyes. Morally we are obligated to avoid such a potential catastrophe if possible.

Unknown	Jun 04, 2004, 09:59 PM Post #14
Unregistered	so you are advocating the expansion of human consciousness as our moral obligation in order to avoid potential disasters wrought about from not modifying and enhancing our consciousness? I agree with you about it being our moral obligation (or moral imperative if you prefer), for the reason you stated, and many more.

yougene

Jun 05, 2004, 10:00 AM

Post #15

Newbie

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Jun 03, 2004
Member No.: 2679

QUOTE (purkinje @ Jan 12, 06:46 AM)

I've read someone's post on here referring to expanding consciousness using drugs as analogous to an athlete taking steroids. Is this a legitimate analogy? What about expanding consciousness in general, is this even ethical? What sort of regulation would we need to have in place?

The analogy is legimate in the sense that there are symbollic links between the two. I don't think the analogy paints an accurate picture though. I see expanding consciousness through drugs as being analogous to an athlete raising his her performance through the aid of a trainer. The trainer and the drug(s) are both ultimately tools. To gain results from either one you must have the correct inentions, the correct state of mind, the correct amount of determination etc... I think this analogy paints a more accurate picture of entheogenic substances.

Expanding consciousness in the future through other means will probably have the potential to be used in ethical and unethical ways since these hypothetical technologies would probably also be able to manipulate other mechanisms within the brain like the urge to kill, suffering, complete mind-manipulation etc..... Such manipulation could be put to good use though. How about constructing a sentient being whose mechanisms for violence, suffering, and the furthering of the self over others etc.... have been removed, instead we have a mind that is vastly more aware and consciouss then the human mind of today. Such a being would probably be harmless and pose no threat to humans. This assumption is based on my view on what consciousness which is up to speculation really but so is everything else, regardless I think many in these forums agree with the way I vew consciousness.

The immediate regulation I can see taken place is the protection of these new beings. Humans will destroy anything they feel threatened by. The real threat is the humans.

And yes Unkown you have understood me correctly.

tone	Jun 22, 2004, 04:49 PM Post #16
Unregistered	is expanding consciousness ethical? anything that is reasonably assessed to increase wellness, decrease pain, prevent pain or prevent wellness from declining is ethical one might also argue that anything that allows someones will or desire to be fulfilled, as long as it does no harm, is also ethical. what if someone just WANTS to expand consciousness, even if we are talking about a trip that doesnt increase wellness/pleasure?

tone	Jun 22, 2004, 04:52 PM Post #17
Unregistered	and as for the athelete on steroids not being ethical, then maybe its also not ethical for an athelete with superior chemistry due to DNA luck to play against someone who doesnt have that natural advantage, LoL!

Shawn

Jun 22, 2004, 06:31 PM

Post #18

God

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9

QUOTE (tone @ Jun 22, 07:49 PM)

what if someone just WANTS to expand consciousness, even if we are talking about a trip that doesnt increase wellness/pleasure?

that's always been my problem with postulating pleasure/wellness as the ultimate goal in life, that it can result in all sorts of absurd scenarios in which our experience of pleasure/wellness is optimized (for example, the heroin addict or someone with stimulating electrodes in their brain's pleasure centers) but which we use our foresight to avoid because those scenarios are deemed below us. I think it ultimately comes down to a question of meaning (Viktor Frankl bases his psychology/philosophy around this notion). We seek to maximize meaning, and to instill meaning, in what we know from experience can appear as fundamentally meaningless. Hence, meaningfulness is a function of state-of-mind, and thus we want to expand consciousness and enhance our state-of-mind to increase the meaningfulness of our experience, and conversely, to increase the intensity and depth of our experience of meaningfulness.

Rick

Aug 23, 2004, 11:22 AM

Post #19

Supreme God

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068

QUOTE (purkinje @ Jan 12, 06:46 AM)

What sort of regulation would we need to have in place?

In the USA there are criminal sanctions for using any consciousness expanding drug without medical supervision. Most new psychedelics are added to the schedule of illegal substances by congress as soon as they are popularized.

QUOTE

... expanding consciousness using drugs as analogous to an athlete taking steroids. Is this a legitimate analogy? What about expanding consciousness in general, is this even ethical?

Consciousness expansion is not a competitive contest, so the analogy doesn't apply. Timothy Leary said that LSD was more like a vitamin than a drug: using it was essential to healthy perception. However, consciousness expansion is clearly not for everyone, nor perhaps for even most. History has shown that the elitists such as Albert Hoffmann, the discoverer of LSD, were right. Dr. Hoffman was responsible for canceling Dr. Leary's order for a million doses of LSD from Sandoz Laboratories, thus forcing the consciousness expansion movement underground.

Still, in spite of some unfortunate history, we should not forget what Leary called his commandments for the psychedelic age:

1. One should not alter the consciousness of another without his permission.

2. One should not prevent another from altering his own consciousness.

These two ethical rules, I think, have stood and will stand the test of time.

Sean Henderson

Nov 18, 2004, 03:03 AM

Post #20

Unregistered

QUOTE (Shawn @ Jun 22, 06:31 PM)

QUOTE (tone @ Jun 22, 07:49 PM)

what if someone just WANTS to expand consciousness, even if we are talking about a trip that doesnt increase wellness/pleasure?

that's always been my problem with postulating pleasure/wellness as the ultimate goal in life, that it can result in all sorts of absurd scenarios in which our experience of pleasure/wellness is optimized (for example, the heroin addict or someone with stimulating electrodes in their brain's pleasure centers) but which we use our foresight to avoid because those scenarios are deemed below us. I think it ultimately comes down to a question of meaning (Viktor Frankl bases his psychology/philosophy around this notion). We seek to maximize meaning, and to instill meaning, in what we know from experience can appear as fundamentally meaningless. Hence, meaningfulness is a function of state-of-mind, and thus we want to expand consciousness and enhance our state-of-mind to increase the meaningfulness of our experience, and conversely, to increase the intensity and depth of our experience of meaningfulness.

Meaning, is that not a type of pleasure?

Sean

www.abolitionist-society.com

Rick

Nov 18, 2004, 11:43 AM

Post #21

Supreme God

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068

QUOTE (Sean Henderson @ Nov 18, 04:03 AM)

Meaning, is that not a type of pleasure?

Yes, but some people find the enjoyment of meaning more pleasurable than others. Some people appear to derive no satisfaction from meaning whatever, and are very careless about what meanings they choose to extract from experience. The majority of the voters in the USA, for instance. Many seem to have opted for meaningless belief and an uncritical sense of security.

Unknown #1229

Nov 18, 2004, 01:19 PM

Post #22

Unregistered

QUOTE (Sean Henderson @ Nov 18, 03:03 AM)

Meaning, is that not a type of pleasure?

I believe meaning is related to pleasure but is not a subtype of pleasure. Yes, meaningful experiences are often accompanied by pleasure, but they need not; just consider meaningful experiences that are painful or terrifying; Is that meaning 'pleasurable' in any sense of the word? I don't think it is. Meaning is closer to 'understanding' than it is to 'pleasure', and 'understanding' as such, does not necessarily imply pleasure; Even if you're an overly cerebral intellectual freak, too much understanding can be painful and not in any way pleasurable. My point being that meaning and understanding justify themselves and do not need to be subsumed under 'pleasure' in order to work. Too long have we been misguided by Freudian pleasure principles. Some, such as Viktor Frankl, have tried going beyond such principles, but their success is questionable. Certainly much more could be done in this regard, and so their statements of alternatives to the pleasure principle should be regarded as stepping stones onto higher principles.

Unknown	Nov 25, 2004, 06:34 PM Post #23
Unregistered	Pleasure, meaning, the search for truth, in the end what is it anyway? We struggle and try and comprehend and even create our own constructs of reality, our search for truth could prove endless. Furthermore, we place life on such a pedestal, we try and justify everything to suit our needs and desires and try and justify our own existence and sense of life. What is reality? What is meaning? What does this search for truth and understanding really encompass? Are we just reality "skipping" when things donâ€™t turn our right, according to our sense of how it should be? Look at all these other people, who are completely oblivious to the fact that they are even alive and yet take so much pleasure in life and enjoy complete contentment and satisfaction. Maybe there is no meaning in life, and if such a greater meaning does exist then our lives and all those before us would have been absolutely meaningless and invalid. The question really is, what is the point of expanding consciousness and â€œsearching for greater meaningâ€ when clearly people who do not give this aspect of life any degree of thought seem to be in great contentment and satisfaction? Furthermore, there are many perspectives which we can choose to harbour, however where does the line sit between perspective and meaning?

Trip like I do	Nov 25, 2004, 06:39 PM Post #24
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202	Maybe no meaning is the meaning.

Dan	Nov 25, 2004, 06:41 PM Post #25
God Group: Basic Member Posts: 1908 Joined: May 01, 2003 From: Sri Danananda Member No.: 96	the necessities of life drive us, away from 'bad' and toward 'good' (subjectively defined, but real nonetheless)

Trip like I do	Nov 25, 2004, 06:43 PM Post #26
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202	Answers cannot be found in the bad, only in the good?

Dan	Nov 25, 2004, 06:44 PM Post #27
God Group: Basic Member Posts: 1908 Joined: May 01, 2003 From: Sri Danananda Member No.: 96	bad sucks, good doesn't suck. nobody wants life to suck

Trip like I do	Nov 25, 2004, 06:51 PM Post #28
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202	I've been bad and I've been good, and I found answers/insights at both ends of the pendulum and everywhere in between. Are you a saint? Life must be pretty boring, but subjectively that is what life's meaning for you? And that is fine?

Dan	Nov 25, 2004, 06:58 PM Post #29
God Group: Basic Member Posts: 1908 Joined: May 01, 2003 From: Sri Danananda Member No.: 96	how do you aim to feel? bad or good?

Trip like I do	Nov 25, 2004, 07:01 PM Post #30
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202	I aim to feel good. And you?

« Next Oldest · Ethics · Next Newest »

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members: