Wednesday
Feb042009
Psychedelic Island Views
Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 7:52PM
The following originally appeared in Psychedelic Island Views #2
REV: When did you first experience a mind-altering substance?
Douglas Rushkoff: In the womb, most likely. My mother probably had sex and released endorphins that I got a hit of through the umbilical cord. After that, well, sugar. And I used to take a pill for stomach aches that had some Phenobarbital in it. My first real memory of a drug-induced altered state was ether, when I was three. They knocked me out for a knee injury I had to get fixed. They told me to count backwards from 100. Everything turned green.
REV: You don't look like the stereotypical fan of entheogens. Do you ever feel that when you talk with people, the more you talk to them, the more they begin to think, "whoa, this guy is nuts...but he doesn't look nuts"?
DR: Lately, I've been feeling the opposite. I think the media (what media I get) covers me as some sort of establishment dude, and that when people meet me they find I'm a whole lot more touchy feely and spiritually concerned than they'd expect. I don't talk much about entheogens -- they're usually more interested in media theory, kids and computers, networked culture -- but when I do, I don't find people react negatively. I think many more people have experienced the states that these plants offer than readily admit. If I'm doing a talk, and mention DMT, say, I find a lot of people look up a bit shocked -- not about the drug itself, but that it's being brought into a real conversation that is otherwise so reasonable. That's the trick: to talk about states of consciousness and the information they provide within the context of the reality we're all working on at baseline.
REV: Do you feel that natural hallucinogens are more spiritual than "synthetics"? (I know synthetic is quite ambiguous, do your best!)
DR: I'd like to say that plant hallucinogens are more spiritual than synthesized ones, especially because of their ancient morphogenetic fields and all. In theory, because more people have used them -- and in better rituals than we use now -- they'd be a bit more stable. But, from my own experience, I'd have to say that the synthetics throw in a whole lot fewer surprises. Maybe I'm just a steely, anal-retentive guy, but I prefer the head trip of a good clean synthetic to the mother-earth-is-here-and-you-better-say-hello force of plant life.
REV: Do you have a personal favorite entheogen?
DR: Does 2CB count?
REV: Sure. Do you see something such as 2C-B as pure physical and mental candy, or as a spiritual tool? (Is there a difference?)
DR: Call me a fascist if you must, but I still believe that what feels really good IS really good. Something like 2CB is certainly a rush, but you can't (well, I can't) experience a rush of that intensity without exploring some of the energy driving it. When you use a word like "candy," you imply empty calories. Sugar lasts, what, maybe 30 minutes? Most entheogens last six hours. You don't make it through those six hours unless you do a little work, get a little honest, and start being who you are. That said, however, using drugs as spiritual tools has its limit. I think of them as a stage, really. A tour of what it would be like to be really honest, really open, and really empathic. I don't believe anyone truly retains the abilities without working pretty hard in real life, too. I once said something about a psychedelic trip being like a helicopter ride to the top of the mountain. It's great, because you can get a good view, but it ends back down on the bottom of the mountain and you've still got to climb up yourself if you want to get there for real.
So, in the end, I think of entheogens as medicine. It's great for sick egos, like most of us have; it's good for breaking down certain obstacles to intimacy and thought and experience. But it doesn't take you the whole way, and at some point I think most people will need to set it aside, and maybe only have an experience every year or so, if that.
REV: How do you feel entheogens have helped you?
DR: "Help" is a tricky word. How..have..they..helped. I think that's how they help. Allowing one to break it all down. See how reality is put together. Leary used to pick apart people's language all the time. It annoyed me for a while, until I saw it was less of an attack than an exploration. How do you feel entheogens have helped you? How do I feel?
REV: I know you were good friends with Dr. Leary. How did you initially meet him?
DR: Originally, I was editing an LA magazine called "Exposure." I met Leary at Graham Chapman's (of Monty Python) funeral. Then I called him a few days later to see if he'd write a piece on virtual reality. He did, and it was typically brilliant, but it was kind of all over the place, especially for a mainstream magazine. He told me I could do a rewrite, and when I gave it to him, he said "this is great! It's not what I wrote, but it's great!" Then he took an interest in my books, especially Cyberia and Playing the Future, because he saw them as a continuation of what he'd been doing, in a more modern context. After I moved to New York, I'd stay at his house when I was in town, and we'd talk about culture and media all night. We got a lot of projects off the ground, and I ended up serving him in the role of a friend and agent. Meanwhile, he'd read my stuff and tell me where he thought I was either being too preachy or, god forbid, too negative.
REV: Who else do you admire or respect in the entheogen community?
DR: I think we're ALL in the entheogen community, right? You don't have to take a drug or be famous to join. As far as famous entheogen explorers, I guess the usual suspects: Sasha Shulgin, Ralph Abraham, Gracie and Zarkov, Nina Graboi, Richard Metzger, and you have to respect Terence for what he's done to get these ideas and substances some attention and acceptance.
REV: Well, if we must respect Terence McKenna (and we do!), I must then ask if you have any ideas of what will happen on 12/21/12 (going along with his Timewave Zero Theory)?
DR: I don't think that global shifts in consciousness happen suddenly. I don't believe in a big blast, or in the idea that we'll wake up one day and everything will be different. I do think that certain states of cultural or civilization-wide awareness reach critical mass, though. Maybe that will be such a moment. It's not that we'll all suddenly think differently, but that a majority of people will see the world in a slightly different way. Something like a renaissance. Honestly, if you took a pre-Renaissance person and suddenly put him into your or my head, the whole world would seem to him as odd as a psychedelic trip. We perceive and experience our world in a fundamentally different way from people of other ages, and this change of experience evolves slowly over time. That's why old historical movies about, say, Biblical people are so amusing. Those people wouldn't talk and act like we do -- they heard the voice of god in their own heads.
REV: What are your ideas on ending drug prohibition?
DR: I think it's a great idea. The whole trick is education. The more people know about drugs, the less mystical (in the bad sense) they all seem, the less fear people will have of them. I truly don't believe that the war on psychedelic drugs is about drugs at all. Rather, it's a war against the states of consciousness they offer. You just can't have people running around realizing that reality isn't absolutely fixed if you want to control them and their actions. Probably, the only way to get them legal is to make it good business.
REV: You say that the key to ending drug prohibition is through education about the drugs... we can't even seem to keep the mindless public up-to-date with the dangers of aspirin and caffeine, much less all sorts of demonized drugs. Would you be in agreement with drug legalization if the basic idea followed Darwinism?
DR: First off, you can't go calling the public 'mindless.' If the public is trapped in a hypnotic trance, then something must be done to wake them up. What you're really grappling with here, even in your Darwinism argument, is a form of un-free market capitalism. Those who have taken control of our marketing machinery have the ability to make people think and act in ways that aren't necessarily in our best interests. To say 'fuck em all and let em die of cancer' is a bit tricky. It's not fair to the folks who have gotten addicted to chemicals, or who have developed poor life strategies thanks to propaganda and mind control. Ultimately, I do agree with you that a freemarketplace of ideas is the only answer. It's just the transition that has to be effected with care.
REV: What are your thoughts on smart drugs and Nootropics?
DR: More hype than practicality, honestly. I never noticed much of a change. The best 'smart' drug I ever tried was Dexedrine, and that's just speed. None of the official Nootropics ever yielded any noticeable effects, at least not in the short term. Still, I like the idea of people being willing to take drugs to make themselves "better" than normal, rather than just "not sick." Drugs as an enhancement technology rather than just a cure.
REV: Any decisive thoughts on Ketamine and its place (if any) in the club culture?
DR: I don't know if I have many decisive thoughts at all. I don't personally like the idea of people using Ketamine in clubs. I can't imagine being able to dance on it. Tai chi, maybe. I don't think most clubs are the ideal setting for a psychedelic experience. Ketamine, in small doses, seems pretty manageable -- which is why it probably caught on in social settings -- plus it's easier to get than E. But once psychedelic drugs become habitual, they've lost their place, as I see it. These are sacred and potent chemicals, not party favors. When kids take E or K every week, they lose the ability to experience the deeper parts of the drug. I've seen kids in the UK actually have fights on E. Couldn't be working too well, could it?
REV: How did you question authority today?
DR: Today, meaning today? This day? I suppose in my writing. I'm working on a chapter about discipline and authority, and I've been going off on a rant about how "learning a discipline" usually means something different from learning how to do something. It's more about being indoctrinated into the institution that governs the discipline. I'm also writing about how medical doctors are put through something very much like basic training, including unpredictability and sleep deprivation. What could the reason be, except that both have been proven to promote compliance?
REV: You are working on a new book right now. Here's your chance to get an early plug in. When is it coming out? possible title? what is it about?
DR: It's called "They Say" and it's about they-making in our society. How people and institutions create and exert their own authority, and how much of our daily life is filled with strategies engineered by influence professionals. Kind of dark stuff, but with hints on how to remain unaffected.
REV: With your new book, you are moving back into Sociological works, as opposed to the fictional joy of the Ecstasy Club (well, the joy isn't fictional but the tale is). Sociology deals a great deal with "people watching". When did you first begin to watch people and contemplate on how they work, their lives, etc... Any favorite places to watch people (in their native habitat!!!)?
DR: I think those of us who watch people do it because we didn't fit in at one point or another. The wallflower is the fly on the wall, you know. I probably always did it, but my current line of thought started in college, when I began to see all technology as a substitute for intimacy. Everything came out of that. I tend to watch people more in their extensions than in their direct actions. I'm interested in the way they attempt to express who they are. Otherwise, I like to watch people in big big groups -- raves, sporting spectacles, Dead shows, political rallies. I'm interested in the collective more than the individual. When I get to be alone with someone, I just want to connect.
REV: How do you think American culture will change when LA is finally sucked into the depths of the Pacific?
DR: I don't think you can kill LA. It'll just move to Phoenix, and will be rebuilt within two weeks. [Arizona Bay, ala Bill Hicks.]
REV: What type of music do you listen to? I would guess Trance or House.
DR: A lot of Neil Young, Fila Brasilia, Sneaker Pimps, Clash, Mahler for classical, Porno for Pyros. No house anymore, but lots of -- what are we supposed to call it now? -- trip hop/acid jazz.
REV: What do you feel the entheogen community can do to alter the public's negative opinions about plant consciousness and use?
DR: Use the plants without getting too weird as a result. Girls with nose rings in gauze skirts freak people out. If people believe they're going to turn into hippy-moonie-krishna-freaks, they're not going to try these things. Zarkov is a great example -- he's a stock broker by day. He may be a far out kind of guy, but he proves to people that they can do these substances without turning into Perry Farrel in concert. Also, you have to take some of the emphasis off trying to turn on the world. Really, not everyone should do this stuff, and not everyone should even get to find out about this stuff. It's part of a particular journey. And the harder you press on government, public, and business to promote these chemicals, the harder they're going to push from the other side. There's something to be said for staying below the radar. And even oppressive overcultures tend to be lenient with those who stay beneath radar.
REV: As a student of people and how things happen to them and such, what are your opinions on Scientology? Evil mind-control cult, or simple self-help group?
DR: I've only met drop-outs, so it wouldn't really be fair of me to comment. I know a lot about how they are represented in the media, but little else. From my own exploration, I can tell you I like the idea of using lie-detector technology to determine people's emotional "trouble spots." I don't like the idea of using lie-detectors and detecting people's trouble spots in order to drain their money or force their compliance. Cults only really work when the cult leader is alive. Now that Hubbard is gone, Scientology will now turn into something much more like a religion, so I don't think it will be as potentially dangerous.
REV: What did you write about for Psychedelic Island Views?
DR: I wrote something about Leary, something about the psychedelic origins of the personal computer revolution. I try to be a bit empowering, I guess. Eisner is a good guy, but the Santa Cruz psychedelic scene sometimes seems a bit trapped in the past, and a bit lethargic. I try to pump it up with a little more forward-looking thought. I don't really write about psychedelics, because I think you can go around in circles. They're a means and not an end.
REV: What other publications are you working for?
DR: Well, I write a column about culture and technology that appears in The Guardian of London and a bunch of papers in other countries. It's distributed by the NY Times Syndicate. I also write for Time Digital. Mostly, I've been writing books -- and I think I'm going to lean towards fiction in the future. Maybe that will make room for some more thoughtful, long form journalism. I guess we'll see.
REV: When did you first experience a mind-altering substance?
Douglas Rushkoff: In the womb, most likely. My mother probably had sex and released endorphins that I got a hit of through the umbilical cord. After that, well, sugar. And I used to take a pill for stomach aches that had some Phenobarbital in it. My first real memory of a drug-induced altered state was ether, when I was three. They knocked me out for a knee injury I had to get fixed. They told me to count backwards from 100. Everything turned green.
REV: You don't look like the stereotypical fan of entheogens. Do you ever feel that when you talk with people, the more you talk to them, the more they begin to think, "whoa, this guy is nuts...but he doesn't look nuts"?
DR: Lately, I've been feeling the opposite. I think the media (what media I get) covers me as some sort of establishment dude, and that when people meet me they find I'm a whole lot more touchy feely and spiritually concerned than they'd expect. I don't talk much about entheogens -- they're usually more interested in media theory, kids and computers, networked culture -- but when I do, I don't find people react negatively. I think many more people have experienced the states that these plants offer than readily admit. If I'm doing a talk, and mention DMT, say, I find a lot of people look up a bit shocked -- not about the drug itself, but that it's being brought into a real conversation that is otherwise so reasonable. That's the trick: to talk about states of consciousness and the information they provide within the context of the reality we're all working on at baseline.
REV: Do you feel that natural hallucinogens are more spiritual than "synthetics"? (I know synthetic is quite ambiguous, do your best!)
DR: I'd like to say that plant hallucinogens are more spiritual than synthesized ones, especially because of their ancient morphogenetic fields and all. In theory, because more people have used them -- and in better rituals than we use now -- they'd be a bit more stable. But, from my own experience, I'd have to say that the synthetics throw in a whole lot fewer surprises. Maybe I'm just a steely, anal-retentive guy, but I prefer the head trip of a good clean synthetic to the mother-earth-is-here-and-you-better-say-hello force of plant life.
REV: Do you have a personal favorite entheogen?
DR: Does 2CB count?
REV: Sure. Do you see something such as 2C-B as pure physical and mental candy, or as a spiritual tool? (Is there a difference?)
DR: Call me a fascist if you must, but I still believe that what feels really good IS really good. Something like 2CB is certainly a rush, but you can't (well, I can't) experience a rush of that intensity without exploring some of the energy driving it. When you use a word like "candy," you imply empty calories. Sugar lasts, what, maybe 30 minutes? Most entheogens last six hours. You don't make it through those six hours unless you do a little work, get a little honest, and start being who you are. That said, however, using drugs as spiritual tools has its limit. I think of them as a stage, really. A tour of what it would be like to be really honest, really open, and really empathic. I don't believe anyone truly retains the abilities without working pretty hard in real life, too. I once said something about a psychedelic trip being like a helicopter ride to the top of the mountain. It's great, because you can get a good view, but it ends back down on the bottom of the mountain and you've still got to climb up yourself if you want to get there for real.
So, in the end, I think of entheogens as medicine. It's great for sick egos, like most of us have; it's good for breaking down certain obstacles to intimacy and thought and experience. But it doesn't take you the whole way, and at some point I think most people will need to set it aside, and maybe only have an experience every year or so, if that.
REV: How do you feel entheogens have helped you?
DR: "Help" is a tricky word. How..have..they..helped. I think that's how they help. Allowing one to break it all down. See how reality is put together. Leary used to pick apart people's language all the time. It annoyed me for a while, until I saw it was less of an attack than an exploration. How do you feel entheogens have helped you? How do I feel?
REV: I know you were good friends with Dr. Leary. How did you initially meet him?
DR: Originally, I was editing an LA magazine called "Exposure." I met Leary at Graham Chapman's (of Monty Python) funeral. Then I called him a few days later to see if he'd write a piece on virtual reality. He did, and it was typically brilliant, but it was kind of all over the place, especially for a mainstream magazine. He told me I could do a rewrite, and when I gave it to him, he said "this is great! It's not what I wrote, but it's great!" Then he took an interest in my books, especially Cyberia and Playing the Future, because he saw them as a continuation of what he'd been doing, in a more modern context. After I moved to New York, I'd stay at his house when I was in town, and we'd talk about culture and media all night. We got a lot of projects off the ground, and I ended up serving him in the role of a friend and agent. Meanwhile, he'd read my stuff and tell me where he thought I was either being too preachy or, god forbid, too negative.
REV: Who else do you admire or respect in the entheogen community?
DR: I think we're ALL in the entheogen community, right? You don't have to take a drug or be famous to join. As far as famous entheogen explorers, I guess the usual suspects: Sasha Shulgin, Ralph Abraham, Gracie and Zarkov, Nina Graboi, Richard Metzger, and you have to respect Terence for what he's done to get these ideas and substances some attention and acceptance.
REV: Well, if we must respect Terence McKenna (and we do!), I must then ask if you have any ideas of what will happen on 12/21/12 (going along with his Timewave Zero Theory)?
DR: I don't think that global shifts in consciousness happen suddenly. I don't believe in a big blast, or in the idea that we'll wake up one day and everything will be different. I do think that certain states of cultural or civilization-wide awareness reach critical mass, though. Maybe that will be such a moment. It's not that we'll all suddenly think differently, but that a majority of people will see the world in a slightly different way. Something like a renaissance. Honestly, if you took a pre-Renaissance person and suddenly put him into your or my head, the whole world would seem to him as odd as a psychedelic trip. We perceive and experience our world in a fundamentally different way from people of other ages, and this change of experience evolves slowly over time. That's why old historical movies about, say, Biblical people are so amusing. Those people wouldn't talk and act like we do -- they heard the voice of god in their own heads.
REV: What are your ideas on ending drug prohibition?
DR: I think it's a great idea. The whole trick is education. The more people know about drugs, the less mystical (in the bad sense) they all seem, the less fear people will have of them. I truly don't believe that the war on psychedelic drugs is about drugs at all. Rather, it's a war against the states of consciousness they offer. You just can't have people running around realizing that reality isn't absolutely fixed if you want to control them and their actions. Probably, the only way to get them legal is to make it good business.
REV: You say that the key to ending drug prohibition is through education about the drugs... we can't even seem to keep the mindless public up-to-date with the dangers of aspirin and caffeine, much less all sorts of demonized drugs. Would you be in agreement with drug legalization if the basic idea followed Darwinism?
DR: First off, you can't go calling the public 'mindless.' If the public is trapped in a hypnotic trance, then something must be done to wake them up. What you're really grappling with here, even in your Darwinism argument, is a form of un-free market capitalism. Those who have taken control of our marketing machinery have the ability to make people think and act in ways that aren't necessarily in our best interests. To say 'fuck em all and let em die of cancer' is a bit tricky. It's not fair to the folks who have gotten addicted to chemicals, or who have developed poor life strategies thanks to propaganda and mind control. Ultimately, I do agree with you that a freemarketplace of ideas is the only answer. It's just the transition that has to be effected with care.
REV: What are your thoughts on smart drugs and Nootropics?
DR: More hype than practicality, honestly. I never noticed much of a change. The best 'smart' drug I ever tried was Dexedrine, and that's just speed. None of the official Nootropics ever yielded any noticeable effects, at least not in the short term. Still, I like the idea of people being willing to take drugs to make themselves "better" than normal, rather than just "not sick." Drugs as an enhancement technology rather than just a cure.
REV: Any decisive thoughts on Ketamine and its place (if any) in the club culture?
DR: I don't know if I have many decisive thoughts at all. I don't personally like the idea of people using Ketamine in clubs. I can't imagine being able to dance on it. Tai chi, maybe. I don't think most clubs are the ideal setting for a psychedelic experience. Ketamine, in small doses, seems pretty manageable -- which is why it probably caught on in social settings -- plus it's easier to get than E. But once psychedelic drugs become habitual, they've lost their place, as I see it. These are sacred and potent chemicals, not party favors. When kids take E or K every week, they lose the ability to experience the deeper parts of the drug. I've seen kids in the UK actually have fights on E. Couldn't be working too well, could it?
REV: How did you question authority today?
DR: Today, meaning today? This day? I suppose in my writing. I'm working on a chapter about discipline and authority, and I've been going off on a rant about how "learning a discipline" usually means something different from learning how to do something. It's more about being indoctrinated into the institution that governs the discipline. I'm also writing about how medical doctors are put through something very much like basic training, including unpredictability and sleep deprivation. What could the reason be, except that both have been proven to promote compliance?
REV: You are working on a new book right now. Here's your chance to get an early plug in. When is it coming out? possible title? what is it about?
DR: It's called "They Say" and it's about they-making in our society. How people and institutions create and exert their own authority, and how much of our daily life is filled with strategies engineered by influence professionals. Kind of dark stuff, but with hints on how to remain unaffected.
REV: With your new book, you are moving back into Sociological works, as opposed to the fictional joy of the Ecstasy Club (well, the joy isn't fictional but the tale is). Sociology deals a great deal with "people watching". When did you first begin to watch people and contemplate on how they work, their lives, etc... Any favorite places to watch people (in their native habitat!!!)?
DR: I think those of us who watch people do it because we didn't fit in at one point or another. The wallflower is the fly on the wall, you know. I probably always did it, but my current line of thought started in college, when I began to see all technology as a substitute for intimacy. Everything came out of that. I tend to watch people more in their extensions than in their direct actions. I'm interested in the way they attempt to express who they are. Otherwise, I like to watch people in big big groups -- raves, sporting spectacles, Dead shows, political rallies. I'm interested in the collective more than the individual. When I get to be alone with someone, I just want to connect.
REV: How do you think American culture will change when LA is finally sucked into the depths of the Pacific?
DR: I don't think you can kill LA. It'll just move to Phoenix, and will be rebuilt within two weeks. [Arizona Bay, ala Bill Hicks.]
REV: What type of music do you listen to? I would guess Trance or House.
DR: A lot of Neil Young, Fila Brasilia, Sneaker Pimps, Clash, Mahler for classical, Porno for Pyros. No house anymore, but lots of -- what are we supposed to call it now? -- trip hop/acid jazz.
REV: What do you feel the entheogen community can do to alter the public's negative opinions about plant consciousness and use?
DR: Use the plants without getting too weird as a result. Girls with nose rings in gauze skirts freak people out. If people believe they're going to turn into hippy-moonie-krishna-freaks, they're not going to try these things. Zarkov is a great example -- he's a stock broker by day. He may be a far out kind of guy, but he proves to people that they can do these substances without turning into Perry Farrel in concert. Also, you have to take some of the emphasis off trying to turn on the world. Really, not everyone should do this stuff, and not everyone should even get to find out about this stuff. It's part of a particular journey. And the harder you press on government, public, and business to promote these chemicals, the harder they're going to push from the other side. There's something to be said for staying below the radar. And even oppressive overcultures tend to be lenient with those who stay beneath radar.
REV: As a student of people and how things happen to them and such, what are your opinions on Scientology? Evil mind-control cult, or simple self-help group?
DR: I've only met drop-outs, so it wouldn't really be fair of me to comment. I know a lot about how they are represented in the media, but little else. From my own exploration, I can tell you I like the idea of using lie-detector technology to determine people's emotional "trouble spots." I don't like the idea of using lie-detectors and detecting people's trouble spots in order to drain their money or force their compliance. Cults only really work when the cult leader is alive. Now that Hubbard is gone, Scientology will now turn into something much more like a religion, so I don't think it will be as potentially dangerous.
REV: What did you write about for Psychedelic Island Views?
DR: I wrote something about Leary, something about the psychedelic origins of the personal computer revolution. I try to be a bit empowering, I guess. Eisner is a good guy, but the Santa Cruz psychedelic scene sometimes seems a bit trapped in the past, and a bit lethargic. I try to pump it up with a little more forward-looking thought. I don't really write about psychedelics, because I think you can go around in circles. They're a means and not an end.
REV: What other publications are you working for?
DR: Well, I write a column about culture and technology that appears in The Guardian of London and a bunch of papers in other countries. It's distributed by the NY Times Syndicate. I also write for Time Digital. Mostly, I've been writing books -- and I think I'm going to lean towards fiction in the future. Maybe that will make room for some more thoughtful, long form journalism. I guess we'll see.
Reader Comments