un-orthodoxy interfaces with conservation-ism, orthopraxis, devil's advocacy, music, life thoughts, musings, silliness

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Getting Off Your Face For Jesus

Friend pornoculture posted this Huxley quote elsewhere, which has made me think a bit.
A similar conclusion will be reached by those whose philosophy is unduly "spiritual." God, they will insist, is a spirit and is to be worshiped in spirit. Therefore an experience which is chemically conditioned cannot be an experience of the divine. But, one way or another, all our experiences are chemically conditioned, and if we imagine that some of them are purely "spiritual," purely "intellectual," purely "aesthetic," it is merely because we have never troubled to investigate the internal chemical environment at the moment of their occurrence.

Furthermore, it is a matter of historical record that most contemplatives worked systematically to modify their body chemistry, with a view to creating the internal conditions favorable to spiritual insight. When they were not starving themselves into low blood sugar and a vitamin deficiency, or beating themselves into intoxication by histamine, adrenalin and decomposed protein, they were cultivating insomnia and praying for long periods in uncomfortable position in order to create the psycho-physical symptoms of stress. In the intervals they sang interminable psalms, thus increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the lungs and blood stream, or, if they were Orientals, they did breathing exercises to accomplish the same purpose.

Today we know how to lower the efficiency of the cerebral reducing valve by direct chemical action, and without the risk of inflicting serious damage on the psychophysical organism. ... Knowing as he does (or at least as he can know, if he so desires) what are the chemical conditions of transcendental experience, the aspiring mystic should turn for technical help to the specialists-in pharmacology, in biochemistry, in physiology and neurology. And on their part, of course, the specialists (if any of them aspire to be genuine men of science and complete human beings) should turn, out of their respective pigeonholes, to the artist, the sibyl, the visionary, the mystic-all those, in a word who have had experience of the Other World and who know ... what to do with the experience.
- Aldous Huxley 'Heaven and Hell'

I am not at present sure if we have a spirit as such or where it interacts, but I agree with my friend that we are much more physical than many believe. It's been one of my hobbyhorses for years that, if one accepts Y'shuan theology, Jesus was physically resurrected, now has some kind of body, and there will be a new earth in teh world to come.

I have only recently realised i am, by my practice, a supporter of drug-induced happy states. I must be, I drink alcohol, which is a drug. I also take caffeine, another drug, rather more than i used to. My alcohol use is sometimes with the intention of getting tipsy. (I stay away from getting really plastered, but it's a slippery slope definition.) Which is not to say i therefore support ALL drug states; I have never taken any other recreational drugs.

I haven't ever had what i consider a spiritual experience while drunk. And I am still of the opinion that drug experiences aren't spiritual, although will ponder Huxley's point that all our experiences are chemical-physical ones in the brain.

Two of the practicing neopagans i most respect are adamant that drug experiences are not spiritual experiences, and i've already quoted a buddhist monk saying the same thing.

I am wondering if drugs could be a gateway to the spirit, but we are not equipped to handle them in a discerning way, much like we are not equipped to handle encounters with other spirits well. (see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/sh6end.html and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/eyesopen.html for what i think are very insightful discussions of this topic)

listening toSaeed and Palash | Losing Control

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post goes so well with your new blog title. ;-)

As you know, I've spent a lot of time experimenting with altered states, both chemically induced and via other techniques. I can not definitively say that I've ever had a spiritual experience while in a chemically altered state.

However, that's where I come a bit unstuck, because I don't really have a satisfactory definition for spiritual experience. How is a spiritual experience separated from a non-spiritual one? What, exactly, is the difference? More and more I'm coming to believe that spiritual experience happens all the time, as part of everyday life, interspersed with the occasional epiphany. Even people who achieve satori seem to spend many years having everyday experiences (chopping wood, fetching water) on the way - and afterwards, the only thing that's really changed is their perspective - their inner world, if you will.

If Huxley is right (and I'm pretty sure that he is onto something here), then the physical and the spiritual are inextricably intertwined. This ties in with my personal belief, which is based around the idea that at an atomic (sub-atomic? gah) level, everything is made of the same stuff - lots of protons and electrons whirling round and round, really fast.

So maybe I agree with Huxley because he agrees with me.

Life is a spiritual experience, IMO, and I struggle to separate the physical from the spiritual enough to say "this is spiritual" or "this is physical"

Why does there need to be separation anyway?

*head explodes*

*goes for a coffee*

;-)

May 01, 2007 3:19 pm

 
Blogger xhile said...

I've been thinking about this. I agree that the everyday and the spiritual can't be separated as such, in fact it's fundamental to recognise this. However, what people are generally talking about is a particular kind of experience which is different to general life.

People have a category of experience called 'spiritual' which they recognise. It's these experiences, rather than a general "all life is sacred" immanence view which they are trying to talk about.

May 08, 2007 10:45 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which brings us back to the attempt to define 'spiritual experience' - which, whatever way I look at it, when the visions and the pretty colours and the 'trappings' are removed, seems to boil down to this:

Recognition of the *ahem* "cosmic oneness of everything, man."

The implication of this is that Huxley was right. I'm sure you can fill in the 3,00 word essay I could write to explain myself.

Feel free to find and provide links to descriptions of people's spiritual experiences that don't turn out this way.

I'm sure there's something in here that fits with the 'why do people think people have value' question, too. But, unfortunately, I'm one of those that thinks -nothing- has value in and of itself, only the value placed on it by the observer.

So I guess I'm with Joel on the existence of universe thing. Only, I eat cows. They are yummy.

May 08, 2007 2:02 pm

 

Post a Comment

<< Home