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?

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

"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?

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."

but that Nietzsche quote is about contempt for people who are self-satisfied. Are you saying you agree with Nietzsche?

Absolutely, self-satisfaction suggests to me a closed mind as opposed to an open and questioning one, and that is something I find deplorable.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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!

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 don’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 “searching for greater meaning” 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?

Maybe no meaning is the meaning.

the necessities of life drive us, away from 'bad' and toward 'good' (subjectively defined, but real nonetheless)

Answers cannot be found in the bad, only in the good?

bad sucks, good doesn't suck. nobody wants life to suck

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?

how do you aim to feel? bad or good?

I aim to feel good. And you?

What is good and bad? Is it some construct derived from the mainstream society, a religion developed on the collection of conditioned experience? Searching for truth does not put anybody "in-front", it simply places the illusion of progress within the experience of one's life. All I hear today is about perspectives and the choice to choose, does that choice not conflict the existence of absolute truth? And what is this absolute truth, so what if we discover it, non-existence would eliminate its need. Maybe there is only existence, for all eternity, some ladder of metaphysical growth, then why do we have such limited understanding of life if we have existed for all time? Maybe life is just a dream and the ideal place would be the place of nothingness, the construct of no construct, “just being", that would be hard to deal with as it would constitute a lack of meaning in present and past experience, for us and all those around us, then maybe from this point we cannot understand it or our minds cannot encompass it, then the question comes how about all those others within the world who are already content and happy, what would be the point of change or change to the place of no change of non-conceptuality. Non-conceptuality? Great then why do our minds conceptualise, and isn't the idea of non-conceptuality a concept also, maybe so, however it is the concept which eliminates concept... Great then how do we continue our lives, if enlightenment is reached, would we not need to create conceptualised ideas in order to eat and breathe, and sleep. Thus leading to the point of how can one live in the present when all these needs exist, was Buddha wrong? How would you plan to meditate or even make plans to help others if you are constantly living in the present, maybe it is worthy to have aims, but anything we aim for and reach we are always in the same place. Who knows anything…

"aim to feel good", a struggle for pleasure, that cannot be an absolute aim, a constant battle with the universe to make one's slef feel "good"? Non-existance would eliminate that need.

emotions are not a base of sensations which somehow must be conqered, emotions are clearly tied to thought, and generated by thought and reason, they do not arise at random and if you plan to feel good by doing varioius activities which simply make you feel good then they would loose their meaning or value. how many times can you realx in the sun before you loose interest or play sport before your attention drifts due to bordom. Contemplating you existence is your meaning, this is why we sacrifice stress and other activities in order to devote your time to it.

we cannot know if non-existence is possible or not, because we do not know if once we die if we will wake up or not. But this has other implications as it might hold the possibility that ultimate truth is simply creating a reality which we are happy with, this need for a synthetic creation would eliminate any value and therefore life would become some kind of bad dream.

we haven't managed to non-exist yet (as we clearly exist), so there is no evidence that it is possible

all i know is that i need to learn something or discover something in order to escape this state of mind/state of life, however how long will the struggle last, how much do we need to learn, and what is the point of understanding how it happened and why it happened and how it is happening when there is no 'real' connection, in the aspect that i am here and i automatically understand and exists in peace and whatever.

How can you be here if you are unknown?

i was going to suggest that when a person dies and does not exist in our now, but this can only lead to other places of discussion which i presume there is no end to...

life is a mystery, we are here and we can only hope, if hope is the correct term.

If only life was an open book that could be read from front to back.

i don’t know, i am registered but i do not log in as i'd rather talk from an anonymous id, as this does not allow for discussions to become personalised in the aspect that our opinions and that of other become formed by associations we develop of the ones we are interacting with

if only, but maybe its like this for a reason, who knows

No consequences.

The ultimate mind expansion - Would you have eaten the apple from the tree of knowledge?

maybe we're at a point of evolution where our undestanding and view of life will completely change to something we cannot even imagine, doors could open we didn't even know existed. like our ancestors who couldn't have comprehended that the earth was round.

if we don't self destruct, we ought to be able to cause the transition of sentient beings from organic to synthetic opening the door to accelerated evolution

Ours is the bubble that didn't burst.