Just a few comments. First of all, I am Jon (formerly Cntryforce). Been away
for a while.
MARCO:
1) We need a solid static intellectual base (chapter 2) to face DQ without
risks.
JON:
This is dubious. I would say there is no totally "solid" intellectual base,
and that there is always risks. Always.
MARCO:
IMHO the problem of barroom and alcohol use is that a lot of people have
lost the ceremonial aspect of alcohol. Wine (or beer) always had the
function to facilitate the "convivial" (Latin: live together). It's an
important ingredient in dinners with friends, as helps you to abandon a lot
of social inhibition and increases the conversation. But when you drink
alone in a barroom a "drop" of whisky you abandon at all the ceremonial
and you are risking to fall in alcoholism.
JON:
I would counter that a lot of people have lost the ceremonial aspect of life.
Life in general. I don't like the idea that suggests it's OK to drink in a
group yet not alone. In other words, be part of the crowd, don't try to do
anything on your own. That doesn't make sense.
MARCO:
So I can't compare the Peyote ceremony with barroom: outside of ceremonies
the use of Peyote (or it's synthetic equivalent, LSD) is stupid, useless and
dangerous. Just like it's stupid useless and dangerous the use of alcohol
without a solid background of western static convivial ceremonies
JON:
Again I disagree. This is like saying outside of a formal dinner party,
consumption of fried chicken is stupid, useless, and dangerous. Fried chicken
is dangerous. Now you could say fried chicken isn't a mind-altering drug, but
this would be missing the main point.
Jon
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST