It's not an insult. Psychedelics can profoundly change how someone perceives things. GEB has that sort profound shift in POV that many would associate with psychedelics.
Getting hit in the head can also change how someone perceives things. I think the above commenter was expressing frustration with the popular notion that taking drugs is some sort of shortcut to understanding consciousness, dynamic systems, etc
Note that I said "profound change" not "arbitrary change". What a faithful argument you've blessed us with.
If you think drinking alcohol or taking cocaine has the same mental effects as psychedelics, then, I guess all I can say is don't talk about what you don't know.
For someone who is complaining about someone supposedly not reading the exact words you wrote - you're awfully quick in putting words in their mouth. I don't see "alcohol" or "cocaine" mentioned, and yes, the public does put psychedelics in the generic term 'drugs'.
"Shortcut" is overstating it. It can steer one's thinking in a direction that makes those topics seem more relevant or interesting. This in itself can be very valuable.
> Getting hit on the head
Well - there are recorded cases of brain damage unlocking abilities and aptitudes (albeit with great rarity). So probably not recommended.
But rest assured, psychedelics are less painful, cause less damage and have a higher probability of beneficial effects.
The insult is the implication that thinking like this is somehow due to use of and exposure to psychedelics. Maybe some people need assistance in thinking deeply, Hofstadter certainly is not one of them.
Do you think that you feel better than others for not taking drugs, and that this superiority is assailed when people who take drugs find common ground with one of your favorite thinkers? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for this blatant assholeishness and gatekeeping.
Hofstadter doesn't own thinking about consciousness, thinking deeply, or thinking philosophically. As a matter of fact these sorts of things, to many people - many more than who have even heard of Hofstadter - associate them with psychedelics. So it's not unreasonable, it's not an insult, to think Hofstadter going pretty deeply into questions of meaning, putting mind-bending Escher works in his book, referring to the person that wrote GEB as different from Hofstadter himself, etc... is psychedelic. These are things that most people find eccentric, and what psychedelic users find psychedelic.
The only way I could find insult in such comparisons is if I felt psychedelics themselves were morally inferior or insulting. I would examine that.
Oh, to be clear it has nothing to do with morality. Similar to someone elses comment above, having the experience of thinking you can salsa dance while drunk and actually being able to salsa dance are very different. In the same way, Someone might gain some understanding of H's thinking by taking psychedelics, but that does not lead to the same understanding as actually processing, imagining and writing the material does. I also think you might be devolving a little into flamebait here, as it seems you have taken my statements personally but they were not directed in any way at you.
I took a lot of psychedelics in my life, and in that period I also read GEB quite religiously. And in my experience, I think it could have taken me a lot longer to empathize with the book than if I weren't taking psychedelics; not because of a false sense of understanding but because of a similarity in mental context. I felt like on LSD, I could look behind the curtain, so to speak. This isn't the same feeling as when you're drunk. Nothing else triggered my 'looking behind the curtain' sense as reading GEB. FFS Hofstadter had a place for the non-things - Tumbolia. To a sober person, it's obviously very silly. But on psychedelics, it's quite fantastical and intriguing. Imagine if, there was a place where non-things are. You begin to follow that thought more closely if you've taken psychedelics. You might leave it as nonsense if you haven't.
So from my point of view, it devolved into flamebait the moment you said comparing GEB to psychedelics is insulting. Because to me, it makes sense on a lot of personal levels.
As I've said in another comment. If you think drinking alcohol and taking psychedelics have similar mental effects. Then I suggest you stop talking about what you don't know.
I truly am not intending this upcoming statement as an insult:
I did not struggle with 'looking behind the curtain' while reading GEB, nor did I find the concepts silly - I was rapt with curiosity the whole reading and came to many profound conclusions about the book and it's ideas - and I was not on LSD. Whatever helps you personally understand the world in a more meaningful light is wonderful, but it certainly was not needed for me and I doubt (based on what I know about the author) it was needed for him when writing this book.
You explicitly "wondered" if H was "experienced" with psychedelics, implying that you thought so since you found it "trippy". Go back and read your original comment. No one here is saying psychedelics are morally suspect, they're saying that your explicit suggestion that H was "experienced" is insulting.
Because it is. And your trying to move the goalposts after the fact is just digging that hole deeper.
That's really quite funny. Tell me again how I should read 'my' original comment - after you've compared my username with the one who made it.
The suggestion that Hofstadter has tripped isn't insulting because GEB is a trippy book. Even if it weren't it wouldn't be insulting, only confusing, unless you think that trippy is a bad quality. Examine that.
GEB is whimsical, fun and mind-bending. If it were written any other way it wouldn't be trippy. There is nothing wrong with that.
