But why ascribe any of those feelings to something supernatural? We have a very good understanding of what happens when psychedelics are ingested. It made sense at one time to try to understand these altered perceptions with a supernatural explanation but our understanding of the mental processes involved has grown immensely and is still growing. Psychedelics mimic the breakdown products of neurotransmitters at the synapse: the synaptic area becomes saturated with these pseudo-breakdown-products, preventing the neuro- transmitters from breaking down, so that signals pass which would otherwise be blocked.
The result is that signals which would normally pass from input to output via automatic, subconscious channels, now penetrate deeper, increasing lateral association and engaging the 'conscious' mechanism of the imagination. Therefore the running record of change-of-input, that is to say the universe, our conscious picture of the world, is enriched. Awareness grows of associations, relations and patterns which were previously hidden: 'the big picture' becomes visible.
Psychedelic drugs sensitise by inhibiting conditioned reflex, that is to say, they break habits. Habit is the gate which shuts out routine input from the higher imaginative function of the cortex, and when habit is broken, the imagination is flooded with input.
Since we are creatures of habit, psychedelics, which break habits, tend to dissolve the sense of self, and to break down the barrier and the distinction between ourselves and our environment. This state of unification with the universe is called enlightenment in some religions. This is the 'Illumination of the Clear Light' and occurs when the entire nervous system is open and 'lit up' and empty of attachment, fear, doubt or any clouding emotion.
> I know what Joanna's trying to say in this thread, and I think she's very
> genuine in her desire to understand this part of our existence (she and I
> have discussed this offlist several times). And she's right about the
> disdain that showers anyone here who tries to even broach the subject, much
> less explore it. Atheists tend to be quite smug about their position.
> Oftentimes they're defensive too, which accounts for some of their
> hostility. Again, I know this 'cause I was once there, and pretty much
> everyone I knew acted the same way.
>
> Personally, atheist disdain doesn't really bother me. I view it as a form of
> despair, esp when it's expressed through insults or, if one is feeling
> generous, condescension. Still, some of my best friends are atheists, even
> if their third eye remains firmly closed.
>
> Dennis
I certainly meet many more smug xtians than atheists! I dislike smugness from either party but primarily because the smugness is not justified. Watching Bill Maher is painful. Most vocally loud atheists aren't half as clever as they think they are. Sort of like I am after six Gin and Tonics. "Spiritualists" are more often condescending than smug. Ultimately both parties think they have some truth that the other is too evil, stupid, whatever to see. Obviously not all xtians or atheists are this way but certainly more xtians than atheists suffer from this condition.
I don't know how much distain is showered upon someone who mentions something spiritual, it seems to me to be just the opposite. It probably depends on your vantage point. I really should get back to productive work now.
John Thornton