Drugs That Shape Men's Minds
In
the course of history many more people have died for their drink and their dope
than have died for their religion or their country. The craving for ethyl
alcohol and the opiates has been stronger, in these millions, than the love of
God, of home, of children; even of life. Their cry was not for liberty or
death; it was for death preceded by enslavement. There is a paradox here, and a
mystery. Why should such multitudes of men and women be so ready to sacrifice
themselves for a cause so utterly hopeless and in ways so painful and so
profoundly humiliating?
To
this riddle there is, of course, no simple or single answer. Human beings are
immensely complicated creatures, living simultaneously in a half dozen
different worlds. Each individual is unique and, in a number of respects,
unlike all the other members of the species. None of our motives is unmixed,
none of our actions can be traced back to a single source and, in any group we
care to study, behavior patterns that are observably similar may be the result
of many constellations of dissimilar causes.
Thus,
there are some alcoholics who seem to have been biochemically predestined to
alcoholism. (Among rats, as Prof. Roger Williams, of the University of Texas,
has shown, some are born drunkards; some are born teetotalers and will never
touch the stuff.) Other alcoholics have been foredoomed not by some inherited
defect in their biochemical make-up, but by their neurotic reactions to
distressing events in their childhood or adolescence. Again, others embark upon
their course of slow suicide as a result of mere imitation and good fellowship
because they have made such an "excellent adjustment to their group"
— a process which, if the group happens to be criminal, idiotic or merely
ignorant, can bring only disaster to the well-adjusted individual. Nor must we
forget that large class of addicts who have taken to drugs or drink in order to
escape from physical pain. Aspirin, let us remember, is a very recent
invention. Until late in the Victorian era, "poppy and mandragora,"
along with henbane and ethyl alcohol, were the only pain relievers available to
civilized man. Toothache, arthritis and neuralgia could, and frequently did,
drive men and women to become opium addicts.
De
Quincey, for example, first resorted to opium in order to relieve
"excruciating rheumatic pains of the head." He swallowed his poppy
and, an hour later, "What a resurrection from the lowest depths of the
inner spirit! What an apocalypse!" And it was not merely that he felt no
more pain. "This negative effect was swallowed up in the immensity of
those positive effects which had opened up before me, in the abyss of divine
enjoyment thus suddenly revealed. . . Here was the secret of happiness, about
which the philosophers had disputed for so many ages, at once discovered."
"Resurrection,
apocalypse, divine enjoyment, happiness. . ." De Quincey's words lead us
to the very heart of our paradoxical mystery. The problem of drug addiction and
excessive drinking is not merely a matter of chemistry and psychopathology, of
relief from pain and conformity with a bad society. It is also a problem in
metaphysics — a problem, one might almost say, in theology. In The Varieties of
Religious Experience, William James has touched on these metaphysical aspects
of addiction:
The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due
to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties in human nature, usually
crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober hour.
Sobriety diminishes, discriminates and says no. Drunkenness expands, unites and
says yes. It is in fact the great exciter of the Yes function in man. It
brings its votary from the chill periphery of things into the radiant core. It
makes him for the moment one with truth. Not through mere perversity do men run
after it. To the poor and the unlettered it stands in the place of symphony
concerts and literature; and it is part of the deeper mystery and tragedy of
life that whiffs and gleams of something that we immediately recognize as
excellent should be vouchsafed to so many of us only through the fleeting
earlier phases of what, in its totality, is so degrading a poison. The drunken
consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness, and our total opinion of
it must find its place in our opinion of that larger whole.
William
James was not the first to detect a likeness between drunkenness and the
mystical and premystical states. On the day of Pentecost there were people who
explained the strange behavior of the disciples by saying, "These men are
full of new wine."
Peter
soon undeceived them: "These are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is
but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet
Joel. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of
my Spirit upon all flesh."
And
it is not only by "the dry critics of the sober hour" that the state
of God-intoxication has been likened to drunkenness. In their efforts to
express the inexpressible, the great mystics themselves have done the same.
Thus, St. Theresa of Avila tells us that she "regards the center of our
soul as a cellar, into which God admits us as and when it pleases Him, so as to
intoxicate us with the delicious wine of His grace."
Every
fully developed religion exists simultaneously on several different levels. It
exists as a set of abstract concepts about the world and its governance. It
exists as a set of rites and sacraments, as a traditional method for
manipulating the symbols, by means of which beliefs about the cosmic order are
expressed. It exists as the feelings of love, fear and devotion evoked by this
manipulation of symbols.
And
finally it exists as a special kind of feeling or intuition — a sense of the
oneness of all things in their divine principle, a realization (to use the
language of Hindu theology) that "thou art That," a mystical
experience of what seems self-evidently to be union with God.
The
ordinary waking consciousness is a very useful and, on most occasions, an
indispensable state of mind; but it is by no means the only form of
consciousness, nor in all circumstances the best. Insofar as he transcends his
ordinary self and his ordinary mode of awareness, the mystic is able to enlarge
his vision, to look more deeply into the unfathomable miracle of existence.
The
mystical experience is doubly valuable; it is valuable because it gives the
experiencer a better understanding of himself and the world and because it may
help him to lead a less self-centered and more creative life.
In
hell, a great religious poet has written, the punishment of the lost is to be
"their sweating selves, but worse." On earth we are not worse than we
are; we are merely our sweating selves, period.
Alas,
that is quite bad enough. We love ourselves to the point of idolatry; but we
also intensely dislike ourselves — we find ourselves unutterably boring.
Correlated with this distaste for trie idolatrously worshiped self, there is in
all of us a desire, sometimes latent, sometimes conscious and passionately expressed,
to escape trom the prison of our individuality, an urge to self-transcendence.
It is to this urge that we owe mystical theology, spiritual exercises and yoga
— to this, too, that we owe alcoholism and drug addiction.
Modern
pharmacology has given us a host of new synthetics, but in the field of the
naturally occurring mind changers it has made no radical discoveries. All the
botanical sedatives, stimulants, vision revealers, happiness promoters and
cosmic-consciousness arousers were found out thousands of years ago, before the
dawn of history.
In
many societies at many levels of civilization attempts have been made to fuse
drug intoxication with God intoxication. In ancient Greece, for example, ethyl
alcohol had its place in the established religion. Dionysus, or Bacchus, as he
was often called, was a true divinity. His worshipers addressed him as Lusios,
"Liberator," or as Theoinos, "God-wine." The
latter name telescopes fermented grape juice and the supernatural into a single
pentecostal experience. "Born a god," writes Euripides, "Bacchus
is poured out as a libation to the gods, and through him men receive
good." Unfortunately they also receive harm. The blissful experience of
self-transcendence which alcohol makes possible has to be paid for, and the
price is exorbitantly high.
Complete
prohibition of all chemical mind changers can be decreed, but cannot be
enforced, and tends to create more evils than it cures. Even more
unsatisfactory has been the policy of complete toleration and unrestricted
availability. In England, during the first years of the eighteenth century,
cheap untaxed gin — "drunk for a penny, dead drunk for two-pence" —
threatened society with complete demoralization. A century later, opium, in the
form of laudanum, was reconciling the victims of the Industrial Revolution to
their lot — but at an appalling cost in terms of addiction, illness and early
death. Today most civilized societies follow a course between the two extremes
of total prohibition and total toleration. Certain mind-changing drugs, such as
alcohol, are permitted and made available to the public on payment of a very
high tax, which tends to restrict their consumption. Other mind changers are
unobtainable except under doctors' orders — or illegally from a dope pusher. In
this way the problem is kept within manageable bounds. It is most certainly not
solved. In their ceaseless search for self-transcendence, millions of would-be
mystics become addicts, commit scores of thousands of crimes and are involved
in hundreds of thousands of avoidable accidents.
Do we
have to go on in this dismal way indefinitely? Up until a few years ago, the
answer to such a question would have been a rueful "Yes, we do."
Today, thanks to recent developments in biochemistry and pharmacology, we are
offered a workable alternative. We see that it may soon be possible for us to
do something better in the way of chemical self-transcendence than what we have
been doing so ineptly for the last seventy or eighty centuries.
Is it
possible for a powerful drug to be completely harmless? Perhaps not. But the
physiological cost can certainly be reduced to the point where it becomes
negligible. There are powerful mind changers which do their work without
damaging the taker's psychophysical organism and without inciting him to behave
like a criminal or a lunatic. Biochemistry and pharmacology are just getting
into their stride. Within a few years there will probably be dozens of powerful
but — physiologically and socially speaking — very inexpensive mind changers on
the market.
In
view of what we already have in the way of powerful but nearly harmless drugs;
in view, above all, of what unquestionably we are very soon going to have — we
ought to start immediately to give some serious thought to the problem of the
new mind changers. How ought they to be used? How can they be
abused? Will human beings be better and happier for their discovery? Or worse
and more miserable?
The
matter requires to be examined from many points of view. It is simultaneously a
question for biochemists and physicians, for psychologists and social
anthropologists, for legislators and law-enforcement officers. And finally it
is an ethical question and a religious question. Sooner or later — and the
sooner, the better — the various specialists concerned will have to meet,
discuss and then decide, in the light of the best available evidence and the
most imaginative kind of foresight, what should be done. Meanwhile let us take
a preliminary look at this many-faceted problem.
Last
year American physicians wrote 48,000,000 prescriptions for tranquilizing
drugs, many of which have been refilled, probably more than once. The
tranquilizers are the best known of the new, nearly harmless mind changers.
They can be used by most people, not indeed with complete impunity, but at a
reasonably low physiological cost. Their enormous popularity bears witness to
the fact that a great many people dislike both their environment and
"their sweating selves." Under tranquilizers the degree of their self-transcendence
is not very great; but it is enough to make all the difference, in many cases,
between misery and contentment.
In
theory, tranquilizers should be given only to persons suffering from rather
severe forms of neurosis or psychosis. In practice, unfortunately, many
physicians have been carried away by the current pharmacological fashion and
are prescribing tranquilizers to all and sundry. The history of medical
fashions, it may be remarked, is at least as grotesque as the history of
fashions in women's hats — at least as grotesque and, since human lives are at
stake, considerably more tragic. In the present case, millions of patients who
had no real need of the tranquilizers have been given the pills by their
doctors and have learned to resort to them in every predicament, however
triflingly uncomfortable. This is very bad medicine and, from the pill taker's
point of view, dubious morality and poor sense.
There
are circumstances in which even the healthy are justified in resorting to the
chemical control of negative emotions. If you really can't keep your temper,
let a tranquilizer keep it for you. But for healthy people to resort to a
chemical mind changer every time they feel annoyed or anxious or tense is
neither sensible nor right. Too much tension and anxiety can reduce a man's
efficiency — but so can too little. There are many occasions when it is
entirely proper for us to feel concerned, when an excess of placidity might
reduce our chances of dealing effectively with a ticklish situation. On these
occasions, tension mitigated and directed from within by the psychological
methods of self-control is preferable from every point of view to complacency
imposed from without by the methods of chemical control.
And
now let us consider the case — not, alas, a hypothetical case — of two
societies competing with each other. In Society A, tranquilizers are available
by prescription and at a rather stiff price — which means, in practice, that
their use is confined to that rich and influential minority which provides the
society with its leadership. This minority of leading citizens consumes several
billions of the complacency-producing pills every year. In Society B, on the
other hand, the tranquilizers are not so freely available, and the members of
the influential minority do not resort, on the slightest provocation, to the
chemical control of what may be necessary and productive tension. Which of
these two competing societies is likely to win the race? A society whose
leaders make an excessive use of soothing syrups is in danger of falling behind
a society whose leaders are not overtranquilized.
Now
let us consider another kind of drug — still undiscovered, but probably just
around the corner — a drug capable of making people feel happy in situations
where they would normally feel miserable. Such a drug would be a blessing, but
a blessing fraught with grave political dangers. By making harmless chemical
euphoria freely available, a dictator could reconcile an entire population to a
state of affairs to which self-respecting human beings ought not to be
reconciled. Despots have always found it necessary to supplement force by
political or religious propaganda. In this sense the pen is mightier than the
sword. But mightier than either the pen or the sword is the pill. In mental
hospitals it has been found that chemical restraint is far more effective than
strait jackets or psychiatry. The dictatorships of tomorrow will deprive men of
their freedom, but will give them in exchange a happiness none the less real, as
a subjective experience, for being chemically induced. The pursuit of happiness
is one of the traditional rights of man; unfortunately, the achievement of
happiness may turn out to be incompatible with another of man's rights —
namely, liberty.
It is
quite possible, however, that pharmacology will restore with one hand what it
takes away with the other. Chemically induced euphoria could easily become a
threat to individual liberty; but chemically induced vigor and chemically
heightened intelligence could easily be liberty's strongest bulwark. Most of us
function at about 15 per cent of capacity. How can we step up our lamentably
low efficiency?
Two
methods are available — the educational and the biochemical. We can take adults
and children as they are and give them a much better training than we are
giving them now. Or, by appropriate biochemical methods, we can transform them
into superior individuals. If these superior individuals are given a superior
education, the results will be revolutionary. They will be startling even if we
continue to subject them to the rather poor educational methods at present in
vogue. Will it in fact be possible to produce superior individuals by
biochemical means? The Russians certainly believe it. They are now halfway through
a Five Year Plan to produce "pharmacological substances that normalize
higher nervous activity and heighten human capacity for work." Precursors
of these future mind improvers are already being experimented with. It has been
found, for example, that when given in massive doses some of the vitamins —
nicotinic acid and ascorbic acid for example — sometimes produce a certain
heightening of psychic energy. A combination of two enzymes — ethylene
disulphonate and adenosine triphosphate, which, when injected together, improve
carbohydrate metabolism in nervous tissue — may also turn out to be effective.
Meanwhile
good results are being claimed for various new synthetic, nearly harmless
stimulants. There is iproniazid, which, according to some authorities, "appears
to increase the total amount of psychic energy." Unfortunately, iproniazid
in large doses has side effects which in some cases may be extremely serious.
Another psychic energizer is an amino alcohol which is thought to increase the
body's production of acetylcholine, a substance of prime importance in the
functioning of the nervous system. In view of what has already been achieved,
it seems quite possible that, within a few years, we may be able to lift
ourselves up by our own biochemical bootstraps.
In
the meantime let us all fervently wish the Russians every success in their
current pharmacological venture. The discovery of a drug capable of increasing
the average individual's psychic energy, and its wide distribution throughout
the U.S.S.R., would probably mean the end of Russia's present form of
government. Generalized intelligence and mental alertness are the most powerful
enemies of dictatorship and at the same time the basic conditions of effective
democracy. Even in the democratic West we could do with a bit of psychic
energizing. Between them, education and pharmacology may do something to offset
the effects of that deterioration of our biological material to which
geneticists have frequently called attention.
From
these political and ethical considerations let us now pass to the strictly
religious problems that will be posed by some of the new mind changers. We can
foresee the nature of these future problems by studying the effects of a
natural mind changer, which has been used for centuries past in religious
worship; I refer to the peyote cactus of Northern Mexico and the Southwestern
United States. Peyote contains mescaline — which can now be produced
synthetically — and mescaline, in William James' phrase, "stimulates the
mystical faculties in human nature" far more powerfully and in a far more
enlightening way than alcohol and, what is more, it does so at a physiological
and social cost that is negligibly low. Peyote produces self-transcendence in
two ways — it introduces the taker into the Other World of visionary
experience, and it gives him a sense of solidarity with his fellow worshipers,
with human beings at large and with the divine nature of things.
The
effects of peyote can be duplicated by synthetic mescaline and by LSD (lysergic
acid diethylamide), a derivative of ergot. Effective in incredibly small doses,
LSD is now being used experimentally by psychotherapists in Europe, in South
America, in Canada and the United States. It lowers the barrier between
conscious and subconscious and permits the patient to look more deeply and
understandingly into the recesses of his own mind. The deepening of
self-knowledge takes place against a background of visionary and even mystical
experience.
When
administered in the right kind of psychological environment, these chemical
mind changers make possible a genuine religious experience. Thus a person who
takes LSD or mescaline may suddenly understand — not only intellectually but
organically, experientially — the meaning of such tremendous religious
affirmations as "God is love," or "Though He slay me, yet will I
trust in Him."
It
goes without saying that this kind of temporary self-transcendence is no
guarantee of permanent enlightenment or a lasting improvement of conduct. It is
a "gratuitous grace," which is neither necessary nor sufficient for
salvation, but which if properly used, can be enormously helpful to those who
have received it. And this is true of all such experiences, whether occurring
spontaneously, or as the result of swallowing the right kind of chemical mind
changer, or after undertaking a course of "spiritual exercises" or
bodily mortification.
Those
who are offended by the idea that the swallowing of a pill may contribute to a
genuinely religious experience should remember that all the standard
mortifications — fasting, voluntary sleeplessness and self-torture — inflicted
upon themselves by the ascetics of every religion for the purpose of acquiring
merit, are also, like the mind-changing drugs, powerful devices for altering
the chemistry of the body in general and the nervous system in particular. Or
consider the procedures generally known as spiritual exercises. The breathing
techniques taught by the yogi of India result in prolonged suspensions of
respiration. These in turn result in an increased concentration of carbon
dioxide in the blood; and the psychological consequence of this is a change in
the quality of consciousness. Again, meditations involving long, intense
concentration upon a single idea or image may also result — for neurological
reasons which I do not profess to understand — in a slowing down of respiration
and even in prolonged suspensions of breathing.
Many
ascetics and mystics have practiced their chemistry-changing mortifications and
spiritual exercises while living, for longer or shorter periods, as hermits.
Now, the life of a hermit, such as Saint Anthony, is a life in which there are
very few external stimuli. But as Hebb, John Lilly and other experimental
psychologists have recently shown in the laboratory, a person in a limited
environment, which provides very few external stimuli, soon undergoes a change
in the quality of his consciousness and may transcend his normal self to the
point of hearing voices or seeing visions, often extremely unpleasant, like so
many of Saint Anthony's visions, but sometimes beatific.
That
men and women can, by physical and chemical means, transcend themselves in a
genuinely spiritual way is something which, to the squeamish idealist, seems
rather shocking. But, after all, the drug or the physical exercise is not the
cause of the spiritual experience; it is only its occasion.
Writing
of William James' experiments with nitrous oxide, Bergson has summed up the
whole matter in a few lucid sentences. "The psychic disposition was there,
potentially, only waiting a signal to express itself in action. It might have
been evoked spiritually by an effort made on its own spiritual level. But it
could just as well be brought about materially, by an inhibition of what
inhibited it, by the removing of an obstacle; and this effect was the wholly
negative one produced by the drug." Where, for any reason, physical or
moral, the psychological dispositions are unsatisfactory, the removal of
obstacles by a drug or by ascetic practices will result in a negative rather
than a positive spiritual experience. Such an infernal experience is extremely
distressing, but may also be extremely salutary. There are plenty of people to
whom a few hours in hell — the hell that they themselves have done so much to create
— could do a world of good.
Physiologically
costless, or nearly costless, stimulators of the mystical faculties are now
making their appearance, and many kinds of them will soon be on the market. We
can be quite sure that, as and when they become available, they will be
extensively used. The urge to self-transcendence is so strong and so general
that it cannot be otherwise. In the past, very few people have had spontaneous
experiences of a pre-mystical or fully mystical nature; still fewer have been willing
to undergo the psychophysical disciplines which prepare an insulated individual
for this kind of self-transcendence. The powerful but nearly costless mind
changers of the future will change all this completely. Instead of being rare,
premystical and mystical experiences will become common. What was once the
spiritual privilege of the few will be made available to the many. For the
ministers of the world's organized religions, this will raise a number of
unprecedented problems. For most people, religion has always been a matter of
traditional symbols and of their own emotional, intellectual and ethical
response to those symbols. To men and women who have had direct experience of
self-transcendence into the mind's Other World of vision and union with the
nature of things, a religion of mere symbols is not likely to be very
satisfying. The perusal of a page from even the most beautifully written
cookbook is no substitute for the eating of dinner. We are exhorted to "taste
and see that the Lord is good."
In
one way or another, the world's ecclesiastical authorities will have to come to
terms with the new mind changers. They may come to terms with them negatively,
by refusing to have anything to do with them. In that case, a psychological
phenomenon, potentially of great spiritual value, will manifest itself outside
the pale of organized religion. On the other hand, they may choose to come to
terms with the mind changers in some positive way — exactly how, I am not
prepared to guess.
My
own belief is that, though they may start by being something of an
embarrassment, these new mind changers will tend in the long run to deepen the
spiritual life of the communities in which they are available. That famous
"revival of religion," about which so many people have been talking
for so long, will not come about as the result of evangelistic mass meetings or
the television appearances of photogenic clergymen. It will come about as the
result of biochemical discoveries that will make it possible for large numbers
of men and women to achieve a radical self-transcendence and a deeper
understanding of the nature of things. And this revival of religion will be at
the same time a revolution. From being an activity mainly concerned with
symbols, religion will be transformed into an activity concerned mainly with
experience and intuition — an everyday mysticism underlying and giving
significance to everyday rationality, everyday tasks and duties, everyday human
relationships.
(From The Saturday Evening Post)
